Exclusion limits on higgsino pair production divided by the theory cross-section.The results of the low-mass analysis are used below m(higgsino) = 300 GeV, while those of the high-mass analysis are used above. The figure shows the observed and expected 95% upper limits on the higgsino pair production cross-section as a function of m(higgsino).

Observed and expected 95% limits in the m(higgsino) vs BR(higgsino to higgs+gravitino) plane. The regions above the lines are excluded by the analyses.

The observed and expected 95% upper limits on the total pair production cross section for degenerate higgsinos as a function of m(higgsino) for the high-mass search. Only the high-mass analysis results are used in this figure.

The observed and expected 95% upper limits on the total pair production cross section for degenerate higgsinos as a function of m(higgsino) for the high-mass search, divided by the theory cross section. Only the high-mass analysis results are used in this figure.

The observed and expected 95% upper limits on the total pair production cross section for degenerate higgsinos as a function of m(higgsino) for the low-mass search. Only the low-mass analysis results are used in this figure.

The observed and expected 95% upper limits on the total pair production cross section for degenerate higgsinos as a function of m(higgsino) for the low-mass search, divided by the theory cross section. Only the low-mass analysis results are used in this figure.

Particle-level acceptance for the low-mass discovery signal regions low-SR-MET0-meff440 and low-SR-MET150-meff440, shown as a function of higgsino mass. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events passing the particle-level event selection that emulates the detector-level selection. The acceptance calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons that subsequently both decay to b-quarks.

The experimental efficiency of the low-mass analysis, for the two discovery signal regions low-SR-MET0-meff440 and low-SR-MET150-meff440, as a function of higgsino mass. The experimental efficiency is defined as the number of events passing the detector-level event selection divided by the number of events passing the event selection for a perfect detector. The denominator is obtained by implementing particle-level event selection that emulate the detector-level selection. Such particle-level selection is not applied on the numerator.

Particle-level acceptance for the high-mass discovery signal regions SR-4b-meff1-A-disc and SR-3b-meff3-A, shown as a function of higgsino mass. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events passing the particle-level event selection that emulates the detector-level selection. The acceptance calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons that subsequently both decay to b-quarks.

The experimental efficiency of the high-mass analysis, for the two discovery signal regions SR-4b-meff1-A-disc and SR-3b-meff3-A, as a function of higgsino mass. The experimental efficiency is defined as the number of events passing the detector-level event selection divided by the number of events passing the event selection for a perfect detector. The denominator is obtained by implementing particle-level event selection that emulate the detector-level selection. Such particle-level selection is not applied on the numerator.

Example cutflow for SR-3b-meff3-A.

Example cutflow for SR-4b-meff1-A-disc.

Cutflow for low-mass analysis for each signal mass point.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 1.5, 1.0, and 0.75 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 1.5, 1.0, and 0.75 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 0.5, 0.35, and 0.25 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 0.5, 0.35, and 0.25 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.

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.

The observed and expected (in parentheses) 95% CL lower mass limits on RPV SUSY, Z′ ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) , and QBH signals for the e$\mu$, e$\tau$, and $\mu\tau$ channels.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the $ au$ sneutrino mass in an RPV SUSY model for the e$\mu$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red and blue solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the tau sneutrino mass for two different values of couplings.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the $ au$ sneutrino mass in an RPV SUSY model for the e$\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red and blue solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the tau sneutrino mass for two different values of couplings.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the $ au$ sneutrino mass in an RPV SUSY model for the $\mu\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red and blue solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the tau sneutrino mass for two different values of couplings.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for a Z′ ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) boson with LFV decays, in the e$\mu$ channel.The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the Z′ mass.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for a Z′ ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) boson with LFV decays, in the e$\tau$ channel.The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the Z′ mass.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for a Z′ ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) boson with LFV decays, in the $\mu\tau$ channel.The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the Z′ mass.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for quantum black hole production in an ADD model with $n=4$ extra dimensions, in the e$\mu$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the QBH threshold mass.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for quantum black hole production in an ADD model with $n=4$ extra dimensions, in the e$\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the QBH threshold mass.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for quantum black hole production in an ADD model with $n=4$ extra dimensions, in the $\mu\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the QBH threshold mass.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the RPV SUSY model in the plane of $\tau$ sneutrino mass and $\lambda'$ coupling, for four values of $\lambda$ couplings for the e$\mu$ channel. The regions to the left of and above the curves are excluded.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the RPV SUSY model in the plane of $\tau$ sneutrino mass and $\lambda'$ coupling, for four values of $\lambda$ couplings for the e$\tau$ channel. The regions to the left of and above the curves are excluded.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the RPV SUSY model in the plane of $\tau$ sneutrino mass and $\lambda'$ coupling, for four values of $\lambda$ couplings for the $\mu\tau$ channel. The regions to the left of and above the curves are excluded.

Model-independent upper limits at 95% CL on the product of cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance are shown. Observed (expected) limits are shown in black solid (dashed) lines for the e$\mu$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits.

Model-independent upper limits at 95% CL on the product of cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance are shown. Observed (expected) limits are shown in black solid (dashed) lines for the e$\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits.

Model-independent upper limits at 95% CL on the product of cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance are shown. Observed (expected) limits are shown in black solid (dashed) lines for the $\mu\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 2.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 2.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 2.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 2.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 2.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 2.

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $bb\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $gg\phi$ production rate has been fixed to zero. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 38 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $gg\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only top quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 39 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $gg\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only bottom quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 40 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 31 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $bb\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $gg\phi$ production rate has been profiled. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 32 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been fixed to zero. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 33 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $bb\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $gg\phi$ production rate has been fixed to zero. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 34 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only top quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 35 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only bottom quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 36 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$), via vector boson fusion ($qq\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate is profiled, whereas the scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $qq\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 64 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 65 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 66 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 67 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 68 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 69 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 70 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 71 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 72 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 73 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 74 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 75 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 76 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 77 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 78 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 79 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 80 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 81 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 82 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 83 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 84 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 85 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 86 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on $g_U$ in the VLQ BM 1 scenario in a mass range of $1\leq m_U\leq 5\text{ TeV}$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12a of the publication.

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on $g_U$ in the VLQ BM 2 scenario in a mass range of $1\leq m_U\leq 5\text{ TeV}$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12b of the publication.

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on $g_U$ in the VLQ BM 3 scenario in a mass range of $1\leq m_U\leq 5\text{ TeV}$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 92 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11a of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 41 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 42 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11b of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 43 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11c of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 44 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 45 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11d of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 46 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 47 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $250\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11e of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 48 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $350\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 49 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 50 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $450\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 51 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11f of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 52 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $700\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 53 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 54 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 55 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11g of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11h of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 56 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 57 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 58 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 59 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 60 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 61 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 62 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 63 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11i of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11a of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 41 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 42 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11b of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 43 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11c of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 44 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 45 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11d of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 46 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 47 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $250\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11e of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 48 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $350\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 49 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 50 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $450\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 51 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11f of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 52 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $700\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 53 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 54 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 55 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11g of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11h of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 56 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 57 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 58 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 59 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 60 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 61 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 62 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 63 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11i of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 1\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 99 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 2\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 100 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 3\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 101 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 4\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 102 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 5\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 103 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 1\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 104 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 2\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 105 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 3\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 106 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 4\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 107 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 5\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 108 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 1\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 109 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 2\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 110 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 3\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 111 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 4\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 112 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 5\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 113 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Fractions of the cross-section $\sigma(gg\phi)$ as expected from SM for the loop contributions with only top quarks, only bottom quarks and from the top-bottom interference. These values are used to scale the corresponding signal components for a given mass $m_\phi$.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for high-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for high-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for high-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 25 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 25 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 25 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8a of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8a of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8a of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 26 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 26 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 26 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8b of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8b of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8b of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 27 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 27 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 27 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 28 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 28 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 28 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8e of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8e of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8e of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8f of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8f of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8f of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for low-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for low-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for low-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 21 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 21 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 21 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 22 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 22 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 22 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 23 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 23 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 23 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 24 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 24 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 24 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 20 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 20 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 20 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

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 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 direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models 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 red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained 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 $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained 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 $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained 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 $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

The upper panel shows the observed number of events in each of the binned SRs defined in Table 3, together with the expected SM backgrounds obtained after applying the efficiency correction method to compute the number of expected FSB events. `Others' include the non-dominant background sources, e.g. $t \bar{t}$+$V$, Higgs boson and Drell--Yan events. The uncertainty band includes systematic and statistical errors from all sources. The distributions of two signal points with mass splittings $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = 30$ GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = 50$ GeV are overlaid. The lower panel shows the significance as defined in Ref. [115].

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,0.8125]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,0.8125]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,0.815]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,0.815]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,0.8175]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,0.8175]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,0.82]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,0.82]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,0.8225]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,0.8225]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,0.825]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,0.825]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,0.8275]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,0.8275]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,0.83]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,0.83]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,0.8325]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,0.8325]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,0.835]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,0.835]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,0.8375]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,0.8375]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,0.84]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,0.84]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,0.845]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,0.845]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,0.85]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,0.85]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,0.86]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,0.86]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive 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 $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive 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 chargino signal sample with $m\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0=(125,25)$ GeV, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in (0.77,1]$ and SR-DF BDT-signal$\in (0.81,1]$ regions. The yields include the process cross-section and are weighted to the 139 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity. 170000 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 chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. 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 and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. 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 and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. 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 and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. 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 and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. 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 and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. 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 and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. 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 and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. 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 and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. 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 and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. 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 and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. 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 and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. 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 and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. 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 and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

The upper panel shows the observed number of events in the SRs defined in Table 3, together with the expected SM backgrounds obtained after the background fit in the CRs. `Others' include the non-dominant background sources, e.g.$t \bar{t}$+$V$, Higgs boson and Drell--Yan events. The uncertainty band includes systematic and statistical errors from all sources. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison. The lower panel shows the significance as defined in Ref. [115].

The observed mass distribution in the SR-Inclusive_High signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

List of expected and observed events, $p_{0}$-value and the corresponding $Z$ local significance, as well as the 95% CLs upper limit of the expected and observed signal events ($S^{95}_ ext{exp} and $S^{95}_ ext{obs}$ ) in each mass window for SR-Inclusive bins of the short lifetime regime.

List of expected and observed events, $p_{0}$-value and the corresponding $Z$ local significance, as well as the 95% CLs upper limit of the expected and observed signal events ($S^{95}_ ext{exp} and $S^{95}_ ext{obs}$ ) in each mass window for SR-Inclusive bins of the long lifetime regime.

The observed $p_{\rm T$ distribution in the SR-Inclusive_Low signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed $p_{\rm T$ distribution in the SR-Inclusive_High signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed $|\eta|$ distribution in the SR-Inclusive_Low signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed $|\eta|$ distribution in the SR-Inclusive_High signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed dE/dx distribution in the SR-Inclusive_Low signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed dE/dx distribution in the SR-Inclusive_High signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed mass distribution in the SR-Trk-IBL0_Low signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed mass distribution in the SR-Mu-IBL0_Low signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed mass distribution in the SR-Trk-IBL0_High signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed mass distribution in the SR-Mu-IBL0_High signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed mass distribution in the SR-Trk-IBL1 signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed mass distribution in the SR-Mu-IBL1 signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

Lower limits on the gluino mass, from gluino $R$-hadron pair production, as a function of gluino lifetime for two neutralino mass assumptions of (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 100 \text{GeV}$ and (b) $\Delta m(\tilde{g}, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 30 \text{GeV}$. The upper $1 \sigma_\text{exp}$ expected bound is very close to the expected limit for some lifetime values due to the expected background getting very close to 0 events.

Lower limits on the gluino mass, from gluino $R$-hadron pair production, as a function of gluino lifetime for two neutralino mass assumptions of (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 100 \text{GeV}$ and (b) $\Delta m(\tilde{g}, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 30 \text{GeV}$. The upper $1 \sigma_\text{exp}$ expected bound is very close to the expected limit for some lifetime values due to the expected background getting very close to 0 events.

Lower limits on the gluino mass, from gluino $R$-hadron pair production, as a function of gluino lifetime for two neutralino mass assumptions of (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 100 \text{GeV}$ and (b) $\Delta m(\tilde{g}, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 30 \text{GeV}$. The upper $1 \sigma_\text{exp}$ expected bound is very close to the expected limit for some lifetime values due to the expected background getting very close to 0 events.

Lower limits on the gluino mass, from gluino $R$-hadron pair production, as a function of gluino lifetime for two neutralino mass assumptions of (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 100 \text{GeV}$ and (b) $\Delta m(\tilde{g}, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 30 \text{GeV}$. The upper $1 \sigma_\text{exp}$ expected bound is very close to the expected limit for some lifetime values due to the expected background getting very close to 0 events.

(a) Lower limits on the chargino mass as a function of lifetime, and (b) the contours around the excluded mass-lifetime region for stau pair production.

(a) Lower limits on the chargino mass as a function of lifetime, and (b) the contours around the excluded mass-lifetime region for stau pair production.

(a) Lower limits on the chargino mass as a function of lifetime, and (b) the contours around the excluded mass-lifetime region for stau pair production.

(a) Lower limits on the chargino mass as a function of lifetime, and (b) the contours around the excluded mass-lifetime region for stau pair production.

Comparison of the observed and expected VAR distributionsin VR-LowPt-Trk-IBL0_Low. The band on the expected background estimation indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate there is no events observed in the corresponding bin, while upward triangle markers at the bottom panel indicate the observed data is beyond the range.

Comparison of the observed and expected VAR distributionsin VR-LowPt-Mu-IBL0_Low. The band on the expected background estimation indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate there is no events observed in the corresponding bin, while upward triangle markers at the bottom panel indicate the observed data is beyond the range.

Comparison of the observed and expected VAR distributionsin VR-LowPt-Trk-IBL0_High. The band on the expected background estimation indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate there is no events observed in the corresponding bin, while upward triangle markers at the bottom panel indicate the observed data is beyond the range.

Comparison of the observed and expected VAR distributionsin VR-LowPt-Mu-IBL0_High. The band on the expected background estimation indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate there is no events observed in the corresponding bin, while upward triangle markers at the bottom panel indicate the observed data is beyond the range.

Comparison of the observed and expected VAR distributionsin VR-LowPt-Trk-IBL1. The band on the expected background estimation indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate there is no events observed in the corresponding bin, while upward triangle markers at the bottom panel indicate the observed data is beyond the range.

Comparison of the observed and expected VAR distributionsin VR-LowPt-Mu-IBL1. The band on the expected background estimation indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate there is no events observed in the corresponding bin, while upward triangle markers at the bottom panel indicate the observed data is beyond the range.

Comparison of the observed and expected VAR distributionsin VR-HiEta-Trk-IBL0_Low. The band on the expected background estimation indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate there is no events observed in the corresponding bin, while upward triangle markers at the bottom panel indicate the observed data is beyond the range.

Comparison of the observed and expected VAR distributionsin VR-HiEta-Mu-IBL0_Low. The band on the expected background estimation indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate there is no events observed in the corresponding bin, while upward triangle markers at the bottom panel indicate the observed data is beyond the range.

Comparison of the observed and expected VAR distributionsin VR-HiEta-Trk-IBL0_High. The band on the expected background estimation indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate there is no events observed in the corresponding bin, while upward triangle markers at the bottom panel indicate the observed data is beyond the range.

Comparison of the observed and expected VAR distributionsin VR-HiEta-Mu-IBL0_High. The band on the expected background estimation indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate there is no events observed in the corresponding bin, while upward triangle markers at the bottom panel indicate the observed data is beyond the range.

Comparison of the observed and expected VAR distributionsin VR-HiEta-Trk-IBL1. The band on the expected background estimation indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate there is no events observed in the corresponding bin, while upward triangle markers at the bottom panel indicate the observed data is beyond the range.

Comparison of the observed and expected VAR distributionsin VR-HiEta-Mu-IBL1. The band on the expected background estimation indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate there is no events observed in the corresponding bin, while upward triangle markers at the bottom panel indicate the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed $p_{\rm T$ distribution in the SR-Trk-IBL0_Low signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed $p_{\rm T$ distribution in the SR-Mu-IBL0_Low signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed $p_{\rm T$ distribution in the SR-Trk-IBL0_High signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed $p_{\rm T$ distribution in the SR-Mu-IBL0_High signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed $p_{\rm T$ distribution in the SR-Trk-IBL1 signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed $p_{\rm T$ distribution in the SR-Mu-IBL1 signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed dE/dx distribution in the SR-Trk-IBL0_Low signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed dE/dx distribution in the SR-Mu-IBL0_Low signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed dE/dx distribution in the SR-Trk-IBL0_High signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed dE/dx distribution in the SR-Mu-IBL0_High signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed dE/dx distribution in the SR-Trk-IBL1 signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

The observed dE/dx distribution in the SR-Mu-IBL1 signal-region bin. The band on the expected background indicates the total uncertainty of the estimation. Several representative signal models are overlaid. Events outside the shown range are accumulated in the rightmost bin indicated as 'Overflow'. Downward triangle markers at the bottom of the panels indicate that no events are observed in the corresponding mass bin, while upward triangle markers in the lower panels indicate that the observed data is beyond the range.

Expected and observed distributions in SR-Inclusive_Low of missing transverse momentum. The expected background distribution is calculated for each |eta| slice using CR-kin control region as the template and applying the scale factor using the dE/dx distribution in CR-dEdx of the corresponding |eta| slice. The last bins of the plots include overflow events above the range.

Expected and observed distributions in SR-Inclusive_High of missing transverse momentum. The expected background distribution is calculated for each |eta| slice using CR-kin control region as the template and applying the scale factor using the dE/dx distribution in CR-dEdx of the corresponding |eta| slice. The last bins of the plots include overflow events above the range.

Expected and observed distributions in SR-Inclusive_Low of relative phi-angle between pTmiss and the signal candidate track. The expected background distribution is calculated for each |eta| slice using CR-kin control region as the template and applying the scale factor using the dE/dx distribution in CR-dEdx of the corresponding |eta| slice. The last bins of the plots include overflow events above the range.

Expected and observed distributions in SR-Inclusive_High of relative phi-angle between pTmiss and the signal candidate track. The expected background distribution is calculated for each |eta| slice using CR-kin control region as the template and applying the scale factor using the dE/dx distribution in CR-dEdx of the corresponding |eta| slice. The last bins of the plots include overflow events above the range.

Expected and observed distributions in SR-Inclusive_Low of the transverse mass of pTmiss and the signal candidate track. The expected background distribution is calculated for each |eta| slice using CR-kin control region as the template and applying the scale factor using the dE/dx distribution in CR-dEdx of the corresponding |eta| slice. The last bins of the plots include overflow events above the range.

Expected and observed distributions in SR-Inclusive_High of the transverse mass of pTmiss and the signal candidate track. The expected background distribution is calculated for each |eta| slice using CR-kin control region as the template and applying the scale factor using the dE/dx distribution in CR-dEdx of the corresponding |eta| slice. The last bins of the plots include overflow events above the range.

Expected and observed distributions in SR-Inclusive_Low of the leading jet pT, required to be separated by at least deltaR > 0.4 with respect to the signal candidate track. The expected background distribution is calculated for each |eta| slice using CR-kin control region as the template and applying the scale factor using the dE/dx distribution in CR-dEdx of the corresponding |eta| slice. The last bins of the plots include overflow events above the range.

Expected and observed distributions in SR-Inclusive_High of the leading jet pT, required to be separated by at least deltaR > 0.4 with respect to the signal candidate track. The expected background distribution is calculated for each |eta| slice using CR-kin control region as the template and applying the scale factor using the dE/dx distribution in CR-dEdx of the corresponding |eta| slice. The last bins of the plots include overflow events above the range.

Expected and observed distributions in SR-Inclusive_Low of the relative phi-angle between the leading jet pT, required to be separated by at least deltaR > 0.4 with respect to the signal candidate track, and the signal candidate track. The expected background distribution is calculated for each |eta| slice using CR-kin control region as the template and applying the scale factor using the dE/dx distribution in CR-dEdx of the corresponding |eta| slice. The last bins of the plots include overflow events above the range.

Expected and observed distributions in SR-Inclusive_High of the relative phi-angle between the leading jet pT, required to be separated by at least deltaR > 0.4 with respect to the signal candidate track, and the signal candidate track. The expected background distribution is calculated for each |eta| slice using CR-kin control region as the template and applying the scale factor using the dE/dx distribution in CR-dEdx of the corresponding |eta| slice. The last bins of the plots include overflow events above the range.

Expected and observed distributions in SR-Inclusive_Low of the relative phi-angle between pTmiss and the leading jet pT, required to be separated by at least deltaR > 0.4 with respect to the signal candidate track. The expected background distribution is calculated for each |eta| slice using CR-kin control region as the template and applying the scale factor using the dE/dx distribution in CR-dEdx of the corresponding |eta| slice. The last bins of the plots include overflow events above the range.

Expected and observed distributions in SR-Inclusive_High of the relative phi-angle between pTmiss and the leading jet pT, required to be separated by at least deltaR > 0.4 with respect to the signal candidate track. The expected background distribution is calculated for each |eta| slice using CR-kin control region as the template and applying the scale factor using the dE/dx distribution in CR-dEdx of the corresponding |eta| slice. The last bins of the plots include overflow events above the range.

Expected and observed distributions in SR-Inclusive_Low of the transverse mass of pTmiss and the leading jet pT, required to be separated by at least deltaR > 0.4 with respect to the signal candidate track. The expected background distribution is calculated for each |eta| slice using CR-kin control region as the template and applying the scale factor using the dE/dx distribution in CR-dEdx of the corresponding |eta| slice. The last bins of the plots include overflow events above the range.

Expected and observed distributions in SR-Inclusive_High of the transverse mass of pTmiss and the leading jet pT, required to be separated by at least deltaR > 0.4 with respect to the signal candidate track. The expected background distribution is calculated for each |eta| slice using CR-kin control region as the template and applying the scale factor using the dE/dx distribution in CR-dEdx of the corresponding |eta| slice. The last bins of the plots include overflow events above the range.

Expected and observed distributions in SR-Inclusive_Low of the effective mass, defined as the scalar sum pT of the signal candidate track, jets satisfying pT > 30 GeV, excluding ones within deltaR < 0.4 with respect to the signal candidate track, and pTmiss. The expected background distribution is calculated for each |eta| slice using CR-kin control region as the template and applying the scale factor using the dE/dx distribution in CR-dEdx of the corresponding |eta| slice. The last bins of the plots include overflow events above the range.

Expected and observed distributions in SR-Inclusive_High of the effective mass, defined as the scalar sum pT of the signal candidate track, jets satisfying pT > 30 GeV, excluding ones within deltaR < 0.4 with respect to the signal candidate track, and pTmiss. The expected background distribution is calculated for each |eta| slice using CR-kin control region as the template and applying the scale factor using the dE/dx distribution in CR-dEdx of the corresponding |eta| slice. The last bins of the plots include overflow events above the range.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for gluinos with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 100 \text{GeV}$, with lifetime with lifetime (a) 1 ns, (b) 3 ns, (c) 10 ns, (d) 30 ns, and (e) stable.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for gluinos with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 100 \text{GeV}$, with lifetime with lifetime (a) 1 ns, (b) 3 ns, (c) 10 ns, (d) 30 ns, and (e) stable.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for gluinos with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 100 \text{GeV}$, with lifetime with lifetime (a) 1 ns, (b) 3 ns, (c) 10 ns, (d) 30 ns, and (e) stable.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for gluinos with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 100 \text{GeV}$, with lifetime with lifetime (a) 1 ns, (b) 3 ns, (c) 10 ns, (d) 30 ns, and (e) stable.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for gluinos with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 100 \text{GeV}$, with lifetime with lifetime (a) 1 ns, (b) 3 ns, (c) 10 ns, (d) 30 ns, and (e) stable.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for gluinos with $\Delta m(\tilde{g}, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 30 \text{GeV}$, with lifetime (a) 1 ns, (b) 3 ns, (c) 10 ns, and (d) 30 ns.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for gluinos with $\Delta m(\tilde{g}, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 30 \text{GeV}$, with lifetime (a) 1 ns, (b) 3 ns, (c) 10 ns, and (d) 30 ns.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for gluinos with $\Delta m(\tilde{g}, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 30 \text{GeV}$, with lifetime (a) 1 ns, (b) 3 ns, (c) 10 ns, and (d) 30 ns.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for gluinos with $\Delta m(\tilde{g}, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 30 \text{GeV}$, with lifetime (a) 1 ns, (b) 3 ns, (c) 10 ns, and (d) 30 ns.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for charginos with lifetime (c) 10 ns, (d) 30 ns, and (e) stable.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for charginos with lifetime (c) 10 ns, (d) 30 ns, and (e) stable.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for charginos with lifetime (c) 10 ns, (d) 30 ns, and (e) stable.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for charginos with lifetime (c) 10 ns, (d) 30 ns, and (e) stable.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for charginos with lifetime (c) 10 ns, (d) 30 ns, and (e) stable.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for sleptons with lifetime (a) 1 ns, (b) 3 ns, (c) 10 ns, (d) 30 ns, and (e) stable.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for sleptons with lifetime (a) 1 ns, (b) 3 ns, (c) 10 ns, (d) 30 ns, and (e) stable.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for sleptons with lifetime (a) 1 ns, (b) 3 ns, (c) 10 ns, (d) 30 ns, and (e) stable.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for sleptons with lifetime (a) 1 ns, (b) 3 ns, (c) 10 ns, (d) 30 ns, and (e) stable.

The expected upper limits on cross-section for sleptons with lifetime (a) 1 ns, (b) 3 ns, (c) 10 ns, (d) 30 ns, and (e) stable.

Muon reconstruction efficiency as a function of β and |η| for (a) stable charginos and (b) stable charged R-hadrons. For weakly interacting LLPs with calorimeter materials the efficiency for the chargino is recommended to refer to. The muon reconstruction efficiency for R-hadrons is significantly lower due to having QCD interactions with materials.

Muon reconstruction efficiency as a function of β and |η| for (a) stable charginos and (b) stable charged R-hadrons. For weakly interacting LLPs with calorimeter materials the efficiency for the chargino is recommended to refer to. The muon reconstruction efficiency for R-hadrons is significantly lower due to having QCD interactions with materials.

Trigger and event selection efficiencies. The band on the marker indicates a typical size of fluctuation by the LLP mass and lifetime observed by the samples used in efficiency derivation, but it does not indicate the full envelope of model dependence.

Trigger and event selection efficiencies. The band on the marker indicates a typical size of fluctuation by the LLP mass and lifetime observed by the samples used in efficiency derivation, but it does not indicate the full envelope of model dependence.

Signal track selection efficiency as a function of CLLP $\beta\gamma$ for SR-Inclusive_Low and SR-Inclusive_High bins. The band on the marker indicates a typical size of fluctuation by the LLP mass and lifetime observed by the samples used in efficiency derivation, but it does not indicate the full envelope of model dependence.

Signal selection efficiency by the mass window for SR-Inclusive_Low and SR-Inclusive_High bins.

Acceptance for the R-hadron pair-production model with m(N1) = 100 GeV for various masses and lifetimes. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of events having at least one charged LLP satisfying pT > 120 GeV, |\eta| < 1.8 and r_decay > 500 mm.

Acceptance for the R-hadron pair-production model with DeltaM(gluino, N1) = 30 GeV for various masses and lifetimes. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of events having at least one charged LLP satisfying pT > 120 GeV, |eta| < 1.8 and r_decay > 500 mm.

Acceptance for the chargino pair-production model for various masses and lifetimes. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of events having at least one charged LLP satisfying pT > 120 GeV, |\eta| < 1.8 and r_decay > 500 mm.

Acceptance for the stau pair-production model for various masses and lifetimes. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of events having at least one charged LLP satisfying pT > 120 GeV, |\eta| < 1.8 and r_decay > 500 mm.

Event-level efficiency for the R-hadron pair-production model with m(N1) = 100 GeV for various masses and lifetimes. The efficiency is defined as the fraction of events satisfying the selection of trigger, event and jet cleaning, ETmiss and primary vertex requirements per events satisfying the acceptance criteria.

Event-level efficiency for the R-hadron pair-production model with DeltaM(gluino, N1) = 30 GeV for various masses and lifetimes. The efficiency is defined as the fraction of events satisfying the selection of trigger, event and jet cleaning, ETmiss and primary vertex requirements per events satisfying the acceptance criteria.

Event-level efficiency for the chargino pair-production model for various masses and lifetimes. The efficiency is defined as the fraction of events satisfying the selection of trigger, event and jet cleaning, ETmiss and primary vertex requirements per events satisfying the acceptance criteria.

Event-level efficiency for the stau pair-production model for various masses and lifetimes. The efficiency is defined as the fraction of events satisfying the selection of trigger, event and jet cleaning, ETmiss and primary vertex requirements per events satisfying the acceptance criteria.

Efficiency of SR-Inclusive_Highfor the R-hadron pair-production model with m(N1) = 100 GeV for various masses and lifetimes. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of events satisfying the signal region selection to those satisfying the acceptance criteria. The mass window is not applied for the presented numbers.

Efficiency of SR-Inclusive_Highfor the R-hadron pair-production model with DeltaM(gluino, N1) = 30 GeV for various masses and lifetimes. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of events satisfying the signal region selection to those satisfying the acceptance criteria. The mass window is not applied for the presented numbers.

Efficiency of SR-Inclusive_Highfor the chargino pair-production model for various masses and lifetimes. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of events satisfying the signal region selection to those satisfying the acceptance criteria. The mass window is not applied for the presented numbers.

Efficiency of SR-Inclusive_Highfor the stau pair-production model for various masses and lifetimes. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of events satisfying the signal region selection to those satisfying the acceptance criteria. The mass window is not applied for the presented numbers.

Efficiency of SR-Inclusive_Low for the R-hadron pair-production model with m(N1) = 100 GeV for various masses and lifetimes. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of events satisfying the signal region selection to those satisfying the acceptance criteria. The mass window is not applied for the presented numbers.

Efficiency of SR-Inclusive_Low for the R-hadron pair-production model with DeltaM(gluino, N1) = 30 GeV for various masses and lifetimes. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of events satisfying the signal region selection to those satisfying the acceptance criteria. The mass window is not applied for the presented numbers.

Efficiency of SR-Inclusive_Low for the chargino pair-production model for various masses and lifetimes. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of events satisfying the signal region selection to those satisfying the acceptance criteria. The mass window is not applied for the presented numbers.

Efficiency of SR-Inclusive_Low for the stau pair-production model for various masses and lifetimes. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of events satisfying the signal region selection to those satisfying the acceptance criteria. The mass window is not applied for the presented numbers.

Passing events in event selection steps for the R-hadron pair-production model with m(N1) = 100 GeV for various masses and lifetimes.

Passing events in event selection steps for the R-hadron pair-production model with DeltaM(gluino, N1) = 30 GeV for various masses and lifetimes.

Passing events in event selection steps for the chargino pair-production model for various masses and lifetimes.

Passing events in event selection steps for the stau pair-production model for various masses and lifetimes.

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.

Expected limit contour for GGM scenario

Observed limit contour for GGM scenario

Expected limit contour for GGM scenario

Observed limit contour for GGM scenario

Expected limit contour for Neutralino BF scenario

Observed limit contour for Neutralino BF scenario

Expected limit contour for Chargino BF scenario

Observed limit contour for Chargino BF scenario

Expected limit contour for T5Wg

Observed limit contour for T5Wg

Expected limit contour for Gluino BF scenario

Observed limit contour for Gluino BF scenario

Covariance matrix for all bins (additional material)

Correlation matrix for all bins (additional material)

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.

Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.

Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.

Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

Expected background and observed number of events in different jet and $b$-tag multiplicity bins.

Cut flow for a model of top-squark pair production with the top squark decaying to a $b$-quark and a chargino. The chargino decays through the non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda^{''}_{323}$ via a virtual top squark to $bbs$ quark triplets ($m_{\tilde{t}}$ = 800 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}}$ = 750 GeV). The multijet trigger consists of four jets satisfying $p_{\text{T}}\geq(100)120$ GeV for the 2015-2016 (2017-2018) data period. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed. The numbers in $N_{\text{weighted}}$ are normalized by the integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.