Lower limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\Lambda$ for the dimuon channel for different signal chiralities in the (constructive/destructive interference) SRs of the analysis.

Lower limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\Lambda$ for the dilepton combination for different signal chiralities in the (constructive/destructive interference) SRs of the analysis.

The dielectron data events passing the full selection.

The dimuon data events passing the full selection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 40 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 45 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 50 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 55 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 60 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 65 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 70 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 75 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 80 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 85 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 90 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 95 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 100 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

Data event yields and predicted signal and background yields (including subdominant $t\bar{t}$) in bins of dijet and average jet mass.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with scalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with scalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with pseudoscalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with pseudoscalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the fundamental Planck scale $M_{D}$ as a function of the number of extra dimensions $d$.

Exclusion limits on the fundamental Planck scale $M_{D}$ as a function of the number of extra dimensions $d$.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Tagging efficiency for AK8 jets. The efficiency includes the effect of the machine-learning based DeepAK8 tagger, as well as the application of the mass window requirement on the jet. The efficiency is split depending on the matching generator-level object. For reinterpretation purposes, this efficiency can directly be applied to any AK8 jet that is matched to a given type of generator-level object, with no prior selection on the jet mass. Other acceptance requirements on jet $\p_{T}$ and $\eta$ should still be applied.

Tagging efficiency for AK8 jets. The efficiency includes the effect of the machine-learning based DeepAK8 tagger, as well as the application of the mass window requirement on the jet. The efficiency is split depending on the matching generator-level object. For reinterpretation purposes, this efficiency can directly be applied to any AK8 jet that is matched to a given type of generator-level object, with no prior selection on the jet mass. Other acceptance requirements on jet $\p_{T}$ and $\eta$ should still be applied.

Spectrum of ETmiss for the muon channel after the event selection. The spectrum is shown with the requirement MT > 252 GeV.

Spectrum of MT for the electron channel after the event selection.

Spectrum of MT for the muon channel after the event selection.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for WPRIME at 95% CL in the electron channel.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for W* at 95% CL in the electron channel.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for WPRIME at 95% CL in the muon channel.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for W* at 95% CL in the muon channel.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for WPRIME at 95% CL for the combination of the electron and muon channels.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for W* at 95% CL for the combination of the electron and muon channels.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 90% CL for the combination of the electron and muon channel for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on the DM-nucleon scattering cross-section as a function of M(chi) at 90% CL for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 90% CL in the electron for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 90% CL in the muon for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 95% CL in the electron for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 95% CL in the muon for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 95% CL for the combination of the electron and muon channel for various operators in the EFT.

Distributions of $s_{\text{T}}$ in the single-tau one-bin SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $m_{\text{T}}(\tau)$ in the single-tau one-bin SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\Sigma m_{\text{T}}(b_{1,2})$ in the single-tau $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$-binned SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$ in the single-tau $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$-binned SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Observed event yields in data ('Observed') and expected event yields for SM background processes obtained from the background-only fit ('Total bkg.' and rows below) in the signal regions of the di-tau and single-tau channels. The quoted uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties and are truncated at zero yield. By construction, no $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) events can pass the selections in the single-tau channel. As the individual uncertainties are correlated, they do not add in quadrature to equal the total background uncertainty.

From left to right: upper limits at the 95% confidence level (CL) on the visible cross section ($\sigma_\text{vis}$) and on the number of signal events ($S_{\text{obs}}^{95}$). The third column ($S_{\text{exp}}^{95}$) shows the upper limit at the 95% CL on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and $\pm 1\,\sigma$ excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis ($\text{CL}_{b}$), the discovery $p$-value ($p(s=0)$) and the significance ($Z$). In the di-tau SR, where fewer events are observed than predicted by the fitted background estimate, the $p$-value is capped at 0.5.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for the minimal-coupling scenario. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for the minimal-coupling scenario. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for vector leptoquarks with additional gauge couplings. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for vector leptoquarks with additional gauge couplings. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the stop-stau signal model as a function of the masses of the top squark $m(\tilde{t}_{1})$ and of the tau slepton $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1})$. Expected and observed limits are shown for the present search in comparison to observed limits from previous ATLAS analyses based on data from Run-1 of the LHC at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV [Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016)] and on a partial dataset from Run 2 at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV [Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 032008]. The green band indicates the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments.

Exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the stop-stau signal model as a function of the masses of the top squark $m(\tilde{t}_{1})$ and of the tau slepton $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1})$. Expected and observed limits are shown for the present search in comparison to observed limits from previous ATLAS analyses based on data from Run-1 of the LHC at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV [Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016)] and on a partial dataset from Run 2 at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV [Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 032008]. The green band indicates the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ with charge $+2/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ with charge $+2/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ with charge $-1/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ with charge $-1/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the stop-stau signal model.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model with up-type leptoquarks.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model with down-type leptoquarks.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model with minimal coupling (MC).

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model with additional gauge couplings (YM).

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eleven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eleven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eleven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with twelve-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with twelve-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with twelve-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Acceptance as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Acceptance as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Acceptance as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Efficiency as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Efficiency as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Efficiency as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Acceptance as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Acceptance as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Acceptance as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Efficiency as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Efficiency as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Efficiency as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where the gluino decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and the neutralino, which then decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and a lepton via a lambda' RPV coupling, where each RPV decay can produce any of the four first and second generation leptons (e, mu, nu_e, nu_mu) with equal probability (m_gluino = 1800 GeV, m_neutralino = 900 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where the gluino decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and the neutralino, which then decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and a lepton via a lambda' RPV coupling, where each RPV decay can produce any of the four first and second generation leptons (e, mu, nu_e, nu_mu) with equal probability (m_gluino = 1800 GeV, m_neutralino = 900 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where the gluino decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and the neutralino, which then decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and a lepton via a lambda' RPV coupling, where each RPV decay can produce any of the four first and second generation leptons (e, mu, nu_e, nu_mu) with equal probability (m_gluino = 1800 GeV, m_neutralino = 900 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s- and a b- quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling (m_gluino = 1600 GeV, m_stop = 1000 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s- and a b- quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling (m_gluino = 1600 GeV, m_stop = 1000 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s- and a b- quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling (m_gluino = 1600 GeV, m_stop = 1000 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays via an off-shell top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino -> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112 (m_gluino = 2000 GeV, m_neutralino = 941 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays via an off-shell top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino -> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112 (m_gluino = 2000 GeV, m_neutralino = 941 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays via an off-shell top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino -> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112 (m_gluino = 2000 GeV, m_neutralino = 941 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of right-handed top squark pair production with the top squark decaying to the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) which is considered to be purely higgsino. The higgsino-like LSP decays through the non-zero RPV coupling lambda''_323 (m_stop = 975 GeV, m_neutralino = 600 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of right-handed top squark pair production with the top squark decaying to the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) which is considered to be purely higgsino. The higgsino-like LSP decays through the non-zero RPV coupling lambda''_323 (m_stop = 975 GeV, m_neutralino = 600 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of right-handed top squark pair production with the top squark decaying to the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) which is considered to be purely higgsino. The higgsino-like LSP decays through the non-zero RPV coupling lambda''_323 (m_stop = 975 GeV, m_neutralino = 600 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

The number of events as a function of the dijet invariant mass, compared to background prediction from fit and corresponding uncertainties, in the region defined by |y*|<1.2 optimized for the W* search.

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [3.4-3.7] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [3.4-3.7] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [3.7-4.0] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [3.7-4.0] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.0-4.3] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.0-4.3] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.3-4.6] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.3-4.6] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.6-4.9] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.6-4.9] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.9-5.4] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.9-5.4] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in dijet invariant mass region above 5.4 TeV

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in dijet invariant mass region above 5.4 TeV

HT inclusive distribution in SRZ.

Jet multiplicity distribution in SRZ.

B-tagged jet multiplicity distribution in SRZ.

Dilepton invariant mass distribution in SRMedium.

Dilepton invariant mass distribution in SRMedium.

Dilepton invariant mass in SRHigh.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model with fixed N1 mass and decays to quarks and Z bosons in SRZ.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model with fixed N1 mass and decays to quarks and Z bosons in SRZ.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the squark simplified model with fixed N1 mass and decays to quarks and Z bosons in SRZ.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the squark simplified model with fixed N1 mass and decays to quarks and Z bosons in SRZ.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model with varying N1 mass and decays to quarks and Z bosons in SRZ.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model with varying N1 mass and decays to quarks and Z bosons in SRZ.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model with sleptons in the edge SRs.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model with sleptons in the edge SRs.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model with decays to on- or off-shell Z bosons in the edge SRs.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model with decays to on- or off-shell Z bosons in the edge SRs.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model with decays to on- or off-shell Z bosons in SRZ.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model with decays to on- or off-shell Z bosons in SRZ.

Cutflow table for three benchmark signal points from the $\tilde{g}$--$\chi_{2}^{0}$ on-shell grid in SRZ for the $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ channels separately. The number of generated events is N RAW, while N WEIGHTED corresponds to the number of events expected in 14.7/fb, after all MC simulation corrections have been applied.

Cutflow table for three benchmark signal points for the slepton model in SR-low, SR-medium and SR-high for the $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ channels separately. The number of generated events is N RAW, while N WEIGHTED corresponds to the number of events expected in 14.7/fb, after all MC simulation corrections have been applied. The event generation was filtered to require at least two leptons (electrons or muons) with $p_{T}>5$ GeV and $|\eta|<2.8$, with 20000 events required to pass the filter. The corresponding number of unfiltered events is provided in the ``Pre-filter events'' row of the table.

Signal acceptance for the gluino simplified model with decays to quarks and Z bosons in SRZ.

Signal efficiency for the gluino simplified model with decays to quarks and Z bosons in SRZ.

Signal acceptance for the gluino simplified model with decays via sleptons in SRLow.

Signal efficiency for the gluino simplified model with decays via sleptons in SRLow.

Signal acceptance for the gluino simplified model with decays via sleptons in SRMedium.

Signal efficiency for the gluino simplified model with decays via sleptons in SRMedium.

Signal acceptance for the gluino simplified model with decays via sleptons in SRHigh.

Signal efficiency for the gluino simplified model with decays via sleptons in SRHigh.

Upper limits on the signal cross-section at 95% CL for the gluino simplified model with fixed N1 mass and decays to quarks and Z bosons in SRZ.

Upper limits on the signal cross-section at 95% CL for the squark simplified model with fixed N1 mass and decays to quarks and Z bosons in SRZ.

Upper limits on the signal cross-section at 95% CL for the gluino simplified model with varying N1 mass and decays to quarks and Z bosons in SRZ.

Upper limits on the signal cross-section at 95% CL for the gluino simplified model with decays via sleptons.

Upper limits on the signal cross-section at 95% CL for the gluino simplified model with decays to on-shell or off-shell Z bosons.

Distribution of missing transverse momentum in the data and for the background in the PhJetCR. The total background expectation is normali zed to the post-fit result. The errors include both statistical and systematic uncertainties determined by a bin-by-bin fit.

Distribution of missing transverse momentum in the signal region for data and for the background predicted from the fit in the CRs. Overflows are included in the final bin. The errors include both statistical and systematic components. The expected yield of events from the simplified model with $m_\chi$ = 150 GeV and $m_{med}$ = 500 GeV is also shown.

Distribution of photon transverse momentum in the signal region for data and for the background predicted from the fit in the CRs. Overflows are included in the final bin. The errors include both statistical and systematic components. The expected yield of events from the simplified model with $m_\chi$ = 150 GeV and $m_{med}$ = 500 GeV is also shown.

The observed and 95% CL exclusion limit for a simplified model of dark matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_q$ = 0.25 and $g_\chi$ = 1 as a function of the dark matter mass $m_\chi$ and the axial-mediator mass $m_{med}$.

The observed 90% CL exclusion limit on the DM-proton scattering cross section in a simplifed model of dark matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_q$ = 0.25 and $g_\chi$ = 1 as a function of the dark matter mass $m_\chi$.

The observed 95% CL lower limits on $M_\ast$ for a dimension-7 operator EFT model with a contact interaction of type $\gamma\gamma\chi\chi$ as a function of dark matter mass $m_\chi$.

The observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass scale $M_D$ in the ADD models of large extra dimensions, for several values of the number of extra dimensions.