$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

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

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

+1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

-1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

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

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

+1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

-1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at no b-jet requirement. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at least 1 b-jet. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at least 2 b-jets. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Summary of all 15 signal regions (post-fit).

Signal region yielding the best-expected CLs value, the best expected CLs value, and the corresponding observed CLs value for the 2Step grid.

Signal region yielding the best-expected CLs value, the best expected CLs value, and the corresponding observed CLs value for the pMSSM grid.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section for 2-step signal points for the best-expected signal region.

Performance of the 8j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Acceptance times efficiency for the tight channel of the Razor analysis for the direct squark-squark model.

Acceptance for the 1tau channel of the Taus+jets+MET analysis for the gluino simplified model.

Efficiency for the 1tau channel of the Taus+jets+MET analysis for the gluino simplified model.

Acceptance for the 2tau channel of the Taus+jets+MET analysis for the gluino simplified model.

Efficiency for the 2tau channel of the Taus+jets+MET analysis for the gluino simplified model.

Acceptance for the 1tau channel of the Taus+jets+MET analysis for the squark simplified model.

Efficiency for the 1tau channel of the Taus+jets+MET analysis for the squark simplified model.

Acceptance for the 2tau channel of the Taus+jets+MET analysis for the squark simplified model.

Efficiency for the 2tau channel of the Taus+jets+MET analysis for the squark simplified model.

Observed limit on the cross-section times branching ratio in fb at 95% CL for the direct squark-squark model.

Observed limit on the cross-section times branching ratio in fb at 95% CL for the gluino simplified model, obtained by the Taus+jets+MET analysis.

Observed limit on the cross-section times branching ratio in fb at 95% CL for the squark simplified model, obtained by the Taus+jets+MET analysis.

Observed 95% CL cross section times branching ratio upper limit on pMSSM qLqL production with M1=60 GeV and $m_{\tilde g}=$1.6 TeV interpreted by the 0L analysis including its two dedicated signal regions.

Observed 95% CL cross section times branching ratio upper limit on pMSSM qLqL production with M2=(M1+mqL)/2 and $m_{\tilde g}=$1.6 TeV interpreted by the 0L analysis including its two dedicated signal regions.

Observed 95% CL cross section times branching ratio upper limit on pMSSM qLqL production with M1=60 GeV with $m_{\tilde g}=$2.2 TeV interpreted by the 0L analysis including its two dedicated signal regions.

Observed 95% CL cross section times branching ratio upper limit on pMSSM qLqL production with M2=(M1+mqL)/2 and $m_{\tilde g}=$2.2 TeV interpreted by the 0L analysis including its two dedicated signal regions.

Observed 95% CL cross section times branching ratio upper limit on pMSSM qLqL production with M1=60 GeV and $m_{\tilde g}=$3.0 TeV interpreted by the 0L analysis including its two dedicated signal regions.

Observed 95% CL cross section times branching ratio upper limit on pMSSM qLqL production with M2=(M1+mqL)/2 and $m_{\tilde g}=$3.0 TeV interpreted by the 0L analysis including its two dedicated signal regions.

Observed and expected limits on the cross-section times branching ratio in fb at 95% CL for the gluino-mediated stop model with off-shell stops, for mass points with four- or five-body gluino decays, obtained by the SS/3L and 0/1L3B analyses.

: Cut flow for signal regions 0L_4jt+ and 0L_5jt of baseline signal points normalized to 20.3 fb$^\mathrm{-1}$. The point used for the 0L_4jt+ cutflow is mqL = 1150 GeV, M1 = 60 GeV, M2 = 1000 GeV, m(gluino) = 2200 GeV. The point used for the 0L_5jt cutflow is mqL = 950 GeV, M1 = 100 GeV, M2 = 525 GeV, m(gluino) = 2200 GeV.

Cut flow for the 1L(H)_7-jet SR (electron channel) for the main background from the $t\bar{t}$ production. The events are normalized to 20.3 fb$^\mathrm{-1}$.

Cut flow for the 1L(H)_7-jet SR (muon channel) for the main background from the $t\bar{t}$ production. The events are normalized to 20.3 fb$^\mathrm{-1}$.

Cut flow for 1L(H)_7-jet SR (electron channel). The signal point is taken from the gluino simplified model with 1-step decay via charginos and parameters $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1145 GeV, $m_{{\tilde \chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 785 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$ = 425 GeV; 20000 events were generated for this point. The events are normalized to 20.3 fb$^\mathrm{-1}$.

Cut flow for 1L(H)_7-jet SR (muon channel). The signal point is taken from the gluino simplified model with 1-step decay via charginos and parameters $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1145 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 785 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$ = 425 GeV; 20000 events were generated for this point. The events are normalized to 20.3 fb$^\mathrm{-1}$.

Cut flow for 1L(H)_7-jet SR (electron channel). The signal point is taken from the gluino simplified model with 1-step decay via charginos and parameters $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1025 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 545 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$ = 65 GeV; 20000 events were generated for this point. The events are normalized to 20.3 fb$^\mathrm{-1}$.

Cut flow for 1L(H)_7-jet SR (muon channel). The signal point is taken from the gluino simplified model with 1-step decay via charginos and parameters $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1025 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 545 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$ = 65 GeV; 20000 events were generated for this point. The events are normalized to 20.3 fb$^\mathrm{-1}$.

Cut flow for 0LRaz_SR$_{\rm loose}$ and 0LRaz_SR$_{\rm tight}$ signal regions of baseline signal point ($m(\tilde{q}, \tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(850, 100)$ GeV) normalized to 20.3 fb$^{-1}$. 5000 events were generated for ths point.

The observed and expected $E_T^{miss}$ distribution in the dimuon SR-Z. The negigible estimated contribution from Z+jets is omitted in these distributions. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dielectron invariant mass distribution in SR-loose. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dimuon invariant mass distribution in SR-loose. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dielectron invariant mass distribution in the two-jet $b$-veto SR. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dimuon invariant mass distribution in the two-jet $b$-veto SR. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dielectron invariant mass distribution in the four jet b-veto SR. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dimuon invariant mass distribution in the four-jet $b$-veto SR. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dielectron invariant mass distribution in the two-jet $b$-tag SR. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dimuon invariant mass distribution in two-jet $b$-tag SR. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dielectron invariant mass distribution in the four-jet $b$-tag SR. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dimuon invariant mass distribution in the four-jet $b$-tag SR. The last bin contains the overflow.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in SR-Z.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in SR-Z.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in SR-Z.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in SR-Z.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons in the two-jet $b$-veto SR.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons in the two-jet $b$-veto SR.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons in the four-jet $b$-veto SR.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons in the four-jet $b$-veto SR.

Number of generated events in the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons.

Production cross-section in the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons.

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

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

Number of generated events in the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.

Production cross-section in the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.

Number of generated events in the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.

Production cross-section in the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.

Total experimental uncertainty [%] for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons.

Total experimental uncertainty [%] for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.

Total experimental uncertainty for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.

Signal acceptance for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in the combined electron and muon SR-Z.

Signal acceptance for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in the combined electron and muon SR-Z.

Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in the dielectron SR-Z.

Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in the dielectron SR-Z.

Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in the dimuon SR-Z.

Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in the dimuon SR-Z.

Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in the electron and muon combined SR-Z.

Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in the the electron and muon combined SR-Z.

Signal acceptance for the two-step first- and second-generation squarks simplified model with sleptons in the two-jet $b$-veto SR.

Signal acceptance for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons in the four-jet $b$-veto SR.

Signal efficiency for the two-step first- and second-generation squarks simplified model with sleptons in the two-jet $b$-veto SR.

Signal efficiency for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons in the four-jet $b$-veto SR.

Upper limits on the signal cross-section at 95% CL for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.

Observed CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.

Expected CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.

Upper limits on the signal cross-section at 95% CL for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.

Observed CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.

Expected CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.

Upper limits on the signal stength at 95% CL for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons. The excluded signal strength is defined as the ratio of the observed excluded production cross section to the expected production cross section calculated at NLO+NLL.

Upper limits on the signal stength at 95% CL for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons. The excluded signal strength is defined as the ratio of the observed excluded production cross section to the expected production cross section calculated at NLO+NLL.

Observed CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Expected CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Observed CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons.

Expected CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons.

Cutflow table for three benchmark signal points in SR-Z for the $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ channels separately. The three signal points are taken from the $\tan\beta = 1.5$ grid. 100000 events were generated for each of these points. Shown here are both the unweighted number of events and the number of events normalised to 20.3 fb$^{-1}$. The total experimental systematic uncertainty on the signal yields is indicated at the last cut, along with the corresponding observed and expected $CL_S$ values.

Cutflow table for three benchmark signal points in the two jet b-veto SR of the off-$Z$ search for the $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ channels separately. Shown here are both the unweighted number of events and the number of events normalised to 20.3$^{-1}$. Except for the last two rows indicating the dilepton mass requirements, quoted event yields include all requirements from the top of the table down to the given row.

Cutflow table for three benchmark signal points in the four jet b-veto SR of the off-$Z$ search for the $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ channels separately. Shown here are both the unweighted number of events and the number of events normalised to 20.3 fb$^{-1}$. Except for the last two rows indicating the dilepton mass requirements, quoted event yields include all requirements from the top of the table down to the given row.

The $p_{\rm T}$ bin width and corrected yield ratios R21 and R31 for $|y| < 0.6$. The statistical and systematic uncertainties in the corrected yield ratios are given as the percentage of the ratio.

The $p_{\rm T}$ bin width and corrected yield ratios R21 and R31 for $0.6 < |y| < 1.2$. The statistical and systematic uncertainties in the corrected yield ratios are given as the percentage of the ratio.

The $p_{\rm T}$ bin width and corrected yield ratios R21 and R31 for $|y| < 1.2$. The statistical and systematic uncertainties in the corrected yield ratios are given as the percentage of the ratio.

The dimuon acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ calculated using the CMS measured polarization and its positive and negative uncertainties $\mathcal{A}(\sigma^{\pm})$, and the values of the acceptance assuming no polarization $\mathcal{A}$(unpol), transverse polarization $\mathcal{A}(T)$, and longitudinal polarization $\mathcal{A}(L)$ for the $\Upsilon$(1S) state and $|y| <0.6$.

The dimuon acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ calculated using the CMS measured polarization and its positive and negative uncertainties $\mathcal{A}(\sigma^{\pm})$, and the values of the acceptance assuming no polarization $\mathcal{A}$(unpol), transverse polarization $\mathcal{A}(T)$, and longitudinal polarization $\mathcal{A}(L)$ for the $\Upsilon $(1S) state and $0.6 < |y| < 1.2$.

The dimuon acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ calculated using the CMS measured polarization and its positive and negative uncertainties $\mathcal{A}(\sigma^{\pm})$, and the values of the acceptance assuming no polarization $\mathcal{A}$(unpol), transverse polarization $\mathcal{A}(T)$, and longitudinal polarization $\mathcal{A}(L)$ for the $\Upsilon $(1S) state and $|y| < 1.2$.

The dimuon acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ calculated using the CMS measured polarization and its positive and negative uncertainties $\mathcal{A}(\sigma^{\pm})$, and the values of the acceptance assuming no polarization $\mathcal{A}$(unpol), transverse polarization $\mathcal{A}(T)$, and longitudinal polarization $\mathcal{A}(L)$ for the $\Upsilon $(2S) state and $|y| < 0.6$.

The dimuon acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ calculated using the CMS measured polarization and its positive and negative uncertainties $\mathcal{A}(\sigma^{\pm})$, and the values of the acceptance assuming no polarization $\mathcal{A}$(unpol), transverse polarization $\mathcal{A}(T)$, and longitudinal polarization $\mathcal{A}(L)$ for the $\Upsilon $(2S) state and $0.6 < |y| < 1.2$.

The dimuon acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ calculated using the CMS measured polarization and its positive and negative uncertainties $\mathcal{A}(\sigma^{\pm})$, and the values of the acceptance assuming no polarization $\mathcal{A}$(unpol), transverse polarization $\mathcal{A}(T)$, and longitudinal polarization $\mathcal{A}(L)$ for the $\Upsilon $(2S) state and $|y| < 1.2$.

The dimuon acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ calculated using the CMS measured polarization and its positive and negative uncertainties $\mathcal{A}(\sigma^{\pm})$, and the values of the acceptance assuming no polarization $\mathcal{A}$(unpol), transverse polarization $\mathcal{A}(T)$, and longitudinal polarization $\mathcal{A}(L)$ for the $\Upsilon $(3S) state and $|y| < 0.6$.

The dimuon acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ calculated using the CMS measured polarization and its positive and negative uncertainties $\mathcal{A}(\sigma^{\pm})$, and the values of the acceptance assuming no polarization $\mathcal{A}$(unpol), transverse polarization $\mathcal{A}(T)$, and longitudinal polarization $\mathcal{A}(L)$ for the $\Upsilon $(3S) state and $0.6 < |y| < 1.2$.

The dimuon acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ calculated using the CMS measured polarization and its positive and negative uncertainties $\mathcal{A}(\sigma^{\pm})$, and the values of the acceptance assuming no polarization $\mathcal{A}$(unpol), transverse polarization $\mathcal{A}(T)$, and longitudinal polarization $\mathcal{A}(L)$ for the $\Upsilon $(3S) state and $|y| < 1.2$.

Observed and expected numbers of events with exactly three leptons with the scalar sum of jet transverse momentum values HT < 200 GeV. "On-Z" refers to events with at least one E+ E- or MU+ MU- (OSSF) pair with dilepton mass between 75 and 105 GeV, while "Off-Z" refers to events with one or two OSSF pairs, none of which fall in this mass range. The OSSFN designation refers to the number of E+ E- and MU+ MU- pairs in the event. Search channels binned in ET have been combined into coarse ET bins for the purposes of presentation.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the calculation of the 95% C.L. limits for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) = BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> Z GRAVITINO) = 0.5 for strong plus electroweak production.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the calculation of the 95% C.L. limits for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) = 1.0 for strong plus electroweak production.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the calculation of the 95% C.L. limits for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> Z0 GRAVITINO) = 1.0 for strong plus electroweak production.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the calculation of the 95% C.L. limit for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with strong plus electroweak production for BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) = BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> Z0 GRAVITINO) = 0.5. The chargino-Higgsino mass is fixed at 150 GeV.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the calculation of the 95% C.L. limit for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with strong plus electroweak production for BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) = BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> Z0 GRAVITINO) = 0.5. The chargino-Higgsino mass is fixed at 350 GeV.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the calculation of the 95% C.L. limits for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with strong plus electroweak production for BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) = 1.0. The chargino-Higgsino mass is fixed at 150 GeV.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the calculation of the 95% C.L. limits for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with strong plus electroweak production for BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) = 1.0. The chargino-Higgsino mass is fixed at 350 GeV.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the calculation of the 95% C.L. limits for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with strong plus electroweak production for BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> Z0 GRAVITINO) = 1.0. The chargino-Higgsino mass is fixed at 150 GeV.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the calculation of the 95% C.L. limits for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with strong plus electroweak production for BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> Z0 GRAVITINO) = 1.0. The chargino-Higgsino mass is fixed at 350 GeV.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the calculation of the 95% C.L. limit on BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with fixed chargino-Higgsino mass of 150 GeV assuming BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) + BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> Z GRAVITINO) = 1.0 and strong plus weak production.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the calculation of the 95% C.L. limit on BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with fixed chargino-Higgsino mass of 250 GeV assuming BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) + BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> Z0 GRAVITINO) = 1.0 and strong plus weak production.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the calculation of the 95% C.L. limit on BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with fixed chargino-Higgsino mass of 350 GeV assuming BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) + BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> Z0 GRAVITINO) = 1.0 and strong plus weak production.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the calculation of the 95% C.L. limits for the slepton co-NLSP model in the gluino-chargino (wino-like chargino) mass plane.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the calculation of the 95% C.L. limits for the stau-NLSP and stau-NNLSP scenario in the degenerate smuon- and selectron- stau mass plane.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the calculation of the 95% C.L. limits for the T1tttt model in the gluino-neutralino mass plane.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the calculation of the 95% C.L. limits for the T6ttWW model in the sbottom-chargino mass plane.

Observed 95% C.L. exclusion contour for the T1tttt scenario.

Observed - 1sig(theoretical) 95% C.L. exclusion contour for the T1tttt scenario.

Observed + 1sig(theoretical) 95% C.L. exclusion contour for the T1tttt scenario.

Expected 95% C.L. exclusion contour for the T1tttt scenario.

Expected - 1sig 95% C.L. exclusion contour for the T1tttt scenario.

Expected + 1sig 95% C.L. exclusion contour for the T1tttt scenario.

Observed 95% C.L. exclusion contour for the T6ttWW scenario.

Observed - 1sig(theoretical) 95% C.L. exclusion contour for the T6ttWW scenario.

Observed + 1sig(theoretical) 95% C.L. exclusion contour for the T6ttWW scenario.

Expected 95% C.L. exclusion contour for the T6ttWW scenario.

Expected - 1sig 95% C.L. exclusion contour for the T6ttWW scenario.

Expected + 1sig 95% C.L. exclusion contour for the T6ttWW scenario.

Observed and expected 95% C.L. limits for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) = BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> Z GRAVITINO) = 0.5 for strong plus electroweak production.

Observed and expected 95% C.L. limits for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) = 1.0 for strong plus electroweak production. Successive instances of SIG(OBS) = SIG(EXP) =0 have been rebinned over M(STOP) to reduce the size of the table.

Observed and expected 95% C.L. limits for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> Z0 GLUINO) = 1.0 for strong plus electroweak production.

Observed 95% C.L. limits on BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with fixed chargino-Higgsino mass of 150 GeV assuming BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) + BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> Z GRAVITINO) = 1.0 and strong plus weak production.

Observed 95% C.L. limits on BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with fixed chargino-Higgsino mass of 250 GeV assuming BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) + BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> Z GRAVITINO) = 1.0 and strong plus weak production.

Observed 95% C.L. limits on BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) for the natural Higgsino NLSP scenario with fixed chargino-Higgsino mass of 350 GeV assuming BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> HIGGS GRAVITINO) + BR(NEUTRALINO1 --> Z GRAVITINO) = 1.0 and strong plus weak production.

Observed and expected 95% C.L. limits for the slepton co-NLSP model in the gluino-chargino (wino-like chargino) mass plane are shown.

Observed and expected 95% C.L. limits for the stau-NLSP and stau-NNLSP scenario in the degenerate smuon- and selectron- stau mass plane are shown. Successive instances of SIG(OBS) = SIG(EXP) =0 have been rebinned over M(SELECTRON) to reduce the size of the table.

Observed and expected 95% C.L. limits for the T1tttt model in the gluino-neutralino mass plane are shown.

Observed and expected 95% C.L. limits for the T6ttWW model in the sbottom-chargino mass plane are given.