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 rejection factor (inverse of the efficiency) for jets that have the other origins (background jets) are shown. The background jet rejection factor is calculated using pre-selected large-$R$ jets in the sample of simulated $Z\rightarrow\nu\nu$ + jets events, dominated by initial state radiation (ISR) jets. The efficiency correction factors are applied on the background rejection for the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The boson-tagging efficiency for jets arising from $Z/h$ bosons decaying into $b\bar{b}$ (signal jets). The signal jet efficiency of $Z_{bb}$/$h_{bb}$-tagging is evaluated using a sample of pre-selected large-$R$ jets ($p_{\textrm{T}}>200~\textrm{GeV}, |\eta|<2.0, m_{J} > 40~\textrm{GeV}$) in the simulated $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model signal events with $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}},~\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}) \ge 400~\textrm{GeV}$. The jets are matched with generator-level $Z/h$-bosons by $\Delta R<1.0$ which decay into $b\bar{b}$. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The rejection factor (inverse of the efficiency) for jets that have the other origins (background jets) are shown. The background jet rejection factor is calculated using pre-selected large-$R$ jets in the sample of simulated $Z\rightarrow\nu\nu$ + jets events, dominated by initial state radiation (ISR) jets. As for the $Z_{bb}$/$h_{bb}$-tagging, the rejection is shown as the function of number of $b$- or $c$-quarks contained in the large-$R$ jet within $\Delta R<1.0$. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The total post-fit uncertainty in each of the SRs and VRs.

Summary of the observed data and predicted SM background in all SRs. The background prediction in SR-4Q (SR-2B2Q) is obtained by a background-only fit to CR0L-4Q (CR0L-2B2Q). The total systematic uncertainty on the background prediction is shown by the hatched area. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\textrm{GeV}$. The bottom panel shows the statistical significance of the discrepancy between the observed number of events and the SM expectation.

Number of observed data events and the SM backgrounds in the SRs and the CR0L bins. The SM backgrounds are predicted by the background-only fits. Note that the relative uncertainty on the expected yield in the CRs between the reducible backgrounds are identical, given that a common normalization factor is assigned for all of them in the fit. Yields for negligible backgrounds are indicated by "0.0000001±0.0000001" in the table.

Number of observed data events and the post-fit SM background prediction in the VR1L(1Y) bins and the corresponding CR1L(1Y) bins. "-" indicates negligibly small contribution. Note that the relative uncertainty on the expected yield in the CRs between the reducible backgrounds are identical, given that a common normalization factor is assigned for all of them in the fit. Yields for negligible backgrounds are indicated by "0.0000001±0.0000001" in the table.

$m_{\textrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{1})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $D_2(J_{1})$ in SR-4Q-VV. For $D_2$, the cut value applied for $V_{qq}$-tagging ($D_{2,\text{cut}}$) is subtracted as the off-set so that $D_2-D_{2,\text{cut}}(J)<0$ represents $J$ passing the $D_2$ selection. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{2})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $D_2(J_{2})$ in SR-4Q-VV. For $D_2$, the cut value applied for $V_{qq}$-tagging ($D_{2,\text{cut}}$) is subtracted as the off-set so that $D_2-D_{2,\text{cut}}(J)<0$ represents $J$ passing the $D_2$ selection. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

$m_{\textrm{T2}}$ distributions in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{bb})$ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m_{\textrm{eff}} $ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

$m_{\textrm{T2}}$ distributions in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{bb})$ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m_{\textrm{eff}} $ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=75$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=75$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=50$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=50$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=25$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ models. The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ models. The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1C1-WW) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-Wh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-Zh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-hh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-4Q-VV, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-2B2Q-VZ, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-2B2Q-Vh, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1C1-WW) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-Wh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-Zh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-hh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

Results for the spin-exotic $1^{-+}1^+[\pi\pi]_{1^{-\,-}}\pi P$ wave from the free-isobar partial-wave analysis performed in the fourth $t^\prime$ bin from $0.326$ to $1.000\;(\text{GeV}/c)^2$. The plotted values represent the intensity of the coherent sum of the dynamic isobar amplitudes $\{\mathcal{T}_k^\text{fit}\}$ as a function of $m_{3\pi}$, where the coherent sums run over all $m_{\pi^-\pi^+}$ bins indexed by $k$. These intensity values are given in number of events per $40\;\text{MeV}/c^2$ $m_{3\pi}$ interval and correspond to the orange points in Fig. 8(b). In the "Resources" section of this $t^\prime$ bin, we provide the JSON file named <code>transition_amplitudes_tBin_3.json</code> for download, which contains for each $m_{3\pi}$ bin the values of the transition amplitudes $\{\mathcal{T}_k^\text{fit}\}$ for all $m_{\pi^-\pi^+}$ bins, their covariances, and further information. The data in this JSON file are organized in independent bins of $m_{3\pi}$. The information in these bins can be accessed via the key <code>m3pi_bin_<#>_t_prime_bin_3</code>. Each independent $m_{3\pi}$ bin contains <ul> <li>the kinematic ranges of the $(m_{3\pi}, t^\prime)$ cell, which are accessible via the keys <code>m3pi_lower_limit</code>, <code>m3pi_upper_limit</code>, <code>t_prime_lower_limit</code>, and <code>t_prime_upper_limit</code>.</li> <li>the $m_{\pi^-\pi^+}$ bin borders, which are accessible via the keys <code>m2pi_lower_limits</code> and <code>m2pi_upper_limits</code>.</li> <li>the real and imaginary parts of the transition amplitudes $\{\mathcal{T}_k^\text{fit}\}$ for all $m_{\pi^-\pi^+}$ bins, which are accessible via the keys <code>transition_amplitudes_real_part</code> and <code>transition_amplitudes_imag_part</code>, respectively.</li> <li>the covariance matrix of the real and imaginary parts of the $\{\mathcal{T}_k^\text{fit}\}$ for all $m_{\pi^-\pi^+}$ bins, which is accessible via the key <code>covariance_matrix</code>. Note that this matrix is real-valued and that its rows and columns are indexed such that $(\Re,\Im)$ pairs of the transition amplitudes are arranged with increasing $k$.</li> <li>the normalization factors $\mathcal{N}_a$ in Eq. (13) for all $m_{\pi^-\pi^+}$ bins, which are accessible via the key <code>normalization_factors</code>.</li> <li>the shape of the zero mode, i.e., the values of $\tilde\Delta_k$ for all $m_{\pi^-\pi^+}$ bins, which is accessible via the key <code>zero_mode_shape</code>.</li> <li>the reference wave, which is accessible via the key <code>reference_wave</code>. Note that this is always the $4^{++}1^+\rho(770)\pi G$ wave.</li> </ul>

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for 7 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for 8 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for 9 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for 10 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for 11 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for 12 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for 13 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for 14 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for at least 15 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for 4 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for 5 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for 6 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for 7 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for 8 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for 9 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for at least 10 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $1\ell$ category for at least 15 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $1\ell$ category for at least 12 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $1\ell$ category for at least 11 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $1\ell$ category for at least 10 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 100 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $1\ell$ category for at least 8 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for at least 10 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for at least 8 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for at least 7 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for at least 7 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 100 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for at least 6 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

Data event yields compared with the expected contributions from relevant background sources, in the discovery signal regions defined for the $1\ell$ category, as well as the observed and expected 95% CL model-independent upper limits on product of cross-section, acceptance and efficiency (in fb). The parameters of the model are determined in a fit to a reduced set of bins, corresponding to the model-independent fit discussed in the text.

Data event yields compared with the expected contributions from relevant background sources, in the discovery signal regions defined for the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category, as well as the observed and expected 95% CL model-independent upper limits on product of cross-section, acceptance and efficiency (in fb). The parameters of the model are determined in a fit to a reduced set of bins, corresponding to the model-independent fit discussed in the text.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}^0_1\rightarrow q\bar{q}q\bar{q} \ell\nu$ model.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}^0_1\rightarrow q\bar{q}q\bar{q} \ell\nu$ model.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow \bar{t}\tilde{t} \rightarrow \bar{t}\bar{b}\bar{s}$ model.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow \bar{t}\tilde{t} \rightarrow \bar{t}\bar{b}\bar{s}$ model.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with bino LSP.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with bino LSP.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with higgsino LSP.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with higgsino LSP.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with wino LSP.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with wino LSP.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the stop pair production model with bino LSP.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the stop pair production model with bino LSP.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the stop pair production model with higgsino LSP.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the stop pair production model with higgsino LSP.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the stop pair production model with wino LSP.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the stop pair production model with wino LSP.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the RPV model with electroweakino prodiction with higgsino LSP hypothesis.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the RPV model with electroweakino prodiction with higgsino LSP hypothesis.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the RPV model with electroweakino prodiction with wino LSP hypothesis.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the RPV model with electroweakino prodiction with wino LSP hypothesis.

Data event yields compared with the expected contributions from relevant background sources, in the discovery signal regions defined for the $1\ell$ category with 20 and 40 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ thresholds. The uncertainties across backgrounds can exhibit strong anticorrelations.

Data event yields compared with the expected contributions from relevant background sources, in the discovery signal regions defined for the $1\ell$ category with 60, 80 and 100 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ thresholds. The uncertainties across backgrounds can exhibit strong anticorrelations.

Data event yields compared with the expected contributions from relevant background sources, in the discovery signal regions defined for the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category with 20 and 40 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ thresholds. The uncertainties across backgrounds can exhibit strong anticorrelations.

Data event yields compared with the expected contributions from relevant background sources, in the discovery signal regions defined for the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category with 60, 80 and 100 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ thresholds. The uncertainties across backgrounds can exhibit strong anticorrelations.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}^0_1\rightarrow q\bar{q}q\bar{q} \ell\nu$ model.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}^0_1\rightarrow q\bar{q}q\bar{q} \ell\nu$ model.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow \bar{t}\tilde{t} \rightarrow \bar{t}\bar{b}\bar{s}$ model.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow \bar{t}\tilde{t} \rightarrow \bar{t}\bar{b}\bar{s}$ model.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with bino LSP.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with bino LSP.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with wino LSP.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with wino LSP.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with higgsino LSP.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with higgsino LSP.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the stop pair production model with bino LSP.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the stop pair production model with bino LSP.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the stop pair production model with wino LSP.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the stop pair production model with wino LSP.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the stop pair production model with higgsino LSP.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the stop pair production model with higgsino LSP.

Acceptance and efficiency for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}^0_1\rightarrow q\bar{q}q\bar{q} \ell\nu$ model in the $1\ell$ category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}^0_1\rightarrow q\bar{q}q\bar{q} \ell\nu$ model in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow \bar{t}\tilde{t} \rightarrow \bar{t}\bar{b}\bar{s}$ model in the $1\ell$ category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow \bar{t}\tilde{t} \rightarrow \bar{t}\bar{b}\bar{s}$ model in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with higgsino LSP in the $1\ell$ category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with higgsino LSP in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the stop model with higgsino LSP in the $1\ell$ category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the stop model with higgsino LSP in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 4 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 5 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 6 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 7 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 8 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category, considering $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 4 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_2$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 5 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_2$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 6 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_2$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 7 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_2$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 8 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_2$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category, considering $\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_2$ production.

Cut flow for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}^0_1\rightarrow q\bar{q}q\bar{q} \ell\nu$ model with $m_{\tilde{g}} = 2$ TeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} = 1$ TeV. The column labelled $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{raw}}$ shows the number of generated events, while $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{events}}$ shows the expected number of events with a luminosity of 139fb$^{−1}$. The last column shows the cut flow efficiency with respect to all weighted events. The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 25$ 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. Selections that have not been evaluated in the analysis or are not applicable are denoted with a dash (--).

Cut flow for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow \bar{t}\tilde{t} \rightarrow \bar{t}\bar{b}\bar{s}$ model with with $m_{\tilde{g}} = 1.6$ TeV and $m_{\tilde{t}} = 1$ TeV. The column labelled $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{raw}}$ shows the number of generated events, while $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{events}}$ shows the expected number of events with a luminosity of 139fb$^{−1}$. The last column shows the cut flow efficiency with respect to all weighted events. The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 25$ 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. Selections that have not been evaluated in the analysis or are not applicable are denoted with a dash (--).

Cut flow for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with $m_{\tilde{g}} = 2.2$ TeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} = 1.05$ TeV. The column labelled $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{raw}}$ shows the number of generated events, while $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{events}}$ shows the expected number of events with a luminosity of 139fb$^{−1}$. The last column shows the cut flow efficiency with respect to all weighted events. The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 25$ 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. Selections that have not been evaluated in the analysis or are not applicable are denoted with a dash (--).

Cut flow for the stop model with $m_{\tilde{t}} = 1.175$ TeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} = 0.7$ TeV. The column labelled $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{raw}}$ shows the number of generated events, while $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{events}}$ shows the expected number of events with a luminosity of 139fb$^{−1}$. The last column shows the cut flow efficiency with respect to all weighted events. The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 25$ 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. Selections that have not been evaluated in the analysis or are not applicable are denoted with a dash (--).

Cut flow for the electroweakino production model, considering only the production of $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1$, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{\chi}^0_1)= 250$ GeV. The column labelled $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{raw}}$ shows the number of generated events, while $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{events}}$ shows the expected number of events with a luminosity of 139fb$^{−1}$. The last column shows the cut flow efficiency with respect to all weighted events. The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 25$ 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. In the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category no events are expected, as only one lepton is expected to be produced in the decay.Selections that have not been evaluated in the analysis or are not applicable are denoted with a dash (--).

Cut flow for the electroweakino production model, considering only the production of $\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_2$, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1,\tilde{\chi}^0_2)= 250$ GeV. The column labelled $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{raw}}$ shows the number of generated events, while $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{events}}$ shows the expected number of events with a luminosity of 139fb$^{−1}$. The last column shows the cut flow efficiency with respect to all weighted events. The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 25$ 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. Selections that have not been evaluated in the analysis or are not applicable are denoted with a dash (--).

Efficiency in the Single-bin SR as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta$ M(N2,N1) $= 130$ GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.

Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} < 0.5$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.

Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} < 0.5$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.

Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $0.5 < \min_{\Theta} < 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.

Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $0.5 < \min_{\Theta} < 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.

Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} > 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.

Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} > 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.

Observed upper limits on the signal cross section as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV.

Expected upper limits on the signal cross section as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV.

Cutflows for the bechmarl signal point M(Sbottom) = 800 GeV, M(N2) = 180 GeV. Weighted event yields are reported starting with the "Preselection" line, normalized to an integrated luminosity of $139$ fb$^{−1}$.

Comparison of the expected and observed event yields in the signal regions. The top-quark and Z(mumu) background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. The other contribution includes all the backgrounds not explicitly listed in the legend (V+jets except Z(mumu)+jets, di-/triboson, multijet). The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background. The contributions from three signal models to the signal regions are also displayed, where the masses M(Sbottom) and M(N2) are given in GeV in the legend. The lower panel shows the significance of the deviation of the observed yield from the expected background yield.

Dominant systematic uncertainties in the background prediction for the signal regions after the fit to the control regions. “Other” includes the uncertainties arising from muons, jet-vertex tagging, modeling of pile-up, the $E_{T}^{miss}$ computation, multijet background, and luminosity. The individual uncertainties can be correlated and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total uncertainty.

Upper limits on observed signal cross section, $\sigma_\text{obs}^\text{95}$, where all slepton flavors are mass degenerate (co-NLSP).

Upper limits on observed signal cross section, $\sigma_\text{obs}^\text{95}$, for the selectron signal model. Selectron ($\tilde{e}_{L, R}$) refers to the scalar superpartners of left- and right-handed electrons.

Upper limits on observed signal cross section, $\sigma_\text{obs}^\text{95}$, for the superpartners of the left-handed electrons, $\tilde{e}_L$.

Upper limits on observed signal cross section, $\sigma_\text{obs}^\text{95}$, for the superpartners of the right-handed electrons, $\tilde{e}_R$.

Upper limits on observed signal cross section, $\sigma_\text{obs}^\text{95}$, for the smuon signal model. Smuon ($\tilde{\mu}_{L, R}$) refers to the scalar superpartners of left- and right-handed muons.

Upper limits on observed signal cross section, $\sigma_\text{obs}^\text{95}$, for the superpartners of the left-handed muons, $\tilde{\mu}_L$.

Upper limits on observed signal cross section, $\sigma_\text{obs}^\text{95}$, for the superpartners of the right-handed muons, $\tilde{\mu}_R$.

Upper limits on observed signal cross section, $\sigma_\text{obs}^\text{95}$, for the stau signal model. Staus, $\tilde{\tau}_{1,2}$ are the mixed states of the superpartners of the left- and right-handed $\tau$ leptons, with mixing angle $\sin\theta_{\tilde\tau}=0.95$.

Upper limits on observed signal cross section, $\sigma_\text{obs}^\text{95}$, for $\tilde{\tau}_L$ production, where $\tilde{\tau}_L$ is pure-state superpartner of the left-handed $\tau$.

The expected and observed yields in the signal regions. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented. Estimates are truncated at 0 if the size of measured systematic uncertainties would yield a negative result.

Reconstruction efficiency as a function of $|d_{0}|$ and $p_\text{T}$ for signal electrons. Monte Carlo samples with $\tilde{e}$ or $\tilde{\mu}$ with mass 400 GeV and 1 ns lifetime were used. Efficiency is defined as the number of leptons passing all signal requirements and matched to generator-level muons divided by the number of generator level leptons with $p_\text{T} > 65$ GeV, $|d_{0}| >$ 3 mm, and |$\eta$| $<$ 2.47 for electrons. No event-level selections are made. Reconstructed leptons must pass all quality criteria, including the cosmic veto. Electron selection scale factors are included on the reconstructed leptons. The overflow is not shown in these plots.

Reconstruction efficiency as a function of $|d_{0}|$ and $p_\text{T}$ for signal muons. Monte Carlo samples with $\tilde{e}$ or $\tilde{\mu}$ with mass 400 GeV and 1 ns lifetime were used. Efficiency is defined as the number of leptons passing all signal requirements and matched to generator-level muons divided by the number of generator level leptons with $p_\text{T} > 65$ GeV, $|d_{0}| >$ 3 mm, and |$\eta$| $<$ 2.5 for muons. No event-level selections are made. Reconstructed leptons must pass all quality criteria, including the cosmic veto. Muon selection scale factors are included on the reconstructed leptons. The overflow is not shown in these plots.

Acceptance for $\tilde{e}$ of various masses and lifetimes in SR-$ee$. Acceptance is defined as the number of accepted events at generator level in signal Monte Carlo simulation divided by the total number of events in the sample. To be accepted, events are required to have at least 2 truth electrons with $p_\text{T} > 65$ GeV, |$\eta$| $<$ 2.47, $|d_{0}| > 3$ mm, and $\Delta R_{\ell\ell} > 0.2$. Events are also required to fall into one of the acceptance regions of the triggers used. At generator level, events must have one of the following: one electron with $p_\text{T} >$ 160 GeV, 2 electrons each with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV, or 1 muon with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV and $|\eta| < 1.07$.

Acceptance for $\tilde{\mu}$ of various masses and lifetimes in SR-$\mu\mu$. Acceptance is defined as the number of accepted events at generator level in signal Monte Carlo simulation divided by the total number of events in the sample. To be accepted, events are required to have at least 2 truth muons with $p_\text{T} > 65$ GeV, |$\eta$| $<$ 2.5, $|d_{0}| > 3$ mm, and $\Delta R_{\ell\ell} > 0.2$. Events are also required to fall into one of the acceptance regions of the triggers used. At generator level, events must have one of the following: one electron with $p_\text{T} >$ 160 GeV, 2 electrons each with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV, or 1 muon with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV and $|\eta| < 1.07$.

Efficiency for $\tilde{e}$ of various masses and lifetimes in SR-$ee$. Efficiency is defined as the number of selected reconstruced events divided by the acceptance. To be accepted, events are required to have at least 2 truth electrons with $p_\text{T} > 65$ GeV, |$\eta$| $<$ 2.47, $|d_{0}| > 3$ mm, and $\Delta R_{\ell\ell} > 0.2$. Events are also required to fall into one of the acceptance regions of the triggers used. At generator level, events must have one of the following: one electron with $p_\text{T} >$ 160 GeV, 2 electrons each with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV, or 1 muon with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV and $|\eta| < 1.07$. To be selected, events must satisfy all signal region requirements.

Efficiency for $\tilde{\mu}$ of various masses and lifetimes in SR-$\mu\mu$. Efficiency is defined as the number of selected reconstruced events divided by the acceptance. To be accepted, events are required to have at least 2 truth muons with $p_\text{T} > 65$ GeV, |$\eta$| $<$ 2.5, $|d_{0}| > 3$ mm, and $\Delta R_{\ell\ell} > 0.2$. Events are also required to fall into one of the acceptance regions of the triggers used. At generator level, events must have one of the following: one electron with $p_\text{T} >$ 160 GeV, 2 electrons each with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV, or 1 muon with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV and $|\eta| < 1.07$. To be selected, events must satisfy all signal region requirements.

Acceptance as a function of the generator-level $p_\text{T}$ of the leading and subleading lepton in SR-$ee$ from $\tilde{e}$ decays. The plot is made from signal Monte Carlo events with $\tilde{\ell}$ with mass of 400 GeV and lifetime of 1 ns. To be accepted, events are required to have at least 2 truth leptons with $p_\text{T} > 65$ GeV, |$\eta$| $<$ 2.47 for electrons, $|d_{0}| > 3$ mm, and $\Delta R_{\ell\ell} > 0.2$. Events are also required to fall into one of the acceptance regions of the triggers used. At generator level, events must have one of the following: one electron with $p_\text{T} >$ 160 GeV, 2 electrons each with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV, or 1 muon with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV and $|\eta| < 1.07$. The overflow is not shown in these plots.

Acceptance as a function of the generator-level $p_\text{T}$ of the leading and subleading lepton in SR-$\mu\mu$ from $\tilde{\mu}$ decays. The plot is made from signal Monte Carlo events with $\tilde{\ell}$ with mass of 400 GeV and lifetime of 1 ns. To be accepted, events are required to have at least 2 truth leptons with $p_\text{T} > 65$ GeV, |$\eta$| $<$ 2.5 for muons, $|d_{0}| > 3$ mm, and $\Delta R_{\ell\ell} > 0.2$. Events are also required to fall into one of the acceptance regions of the triggers used. At generator level, events must have one of the following: one electron with $p_\text{T} >$ 160 GeV, 2 electrons each with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV, or 1 muon with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV and $|\eta| < 1.07$. The overflow is not shown in these plots.

Acceptance for $\tilde{\tau}$ of various masses and lifetimes in SR-$ee$. Acceptance is defined as the number of accepted events at generator level in signal Monte Carlo simulation divided by the total number of events in the sample. To be accepted, events are required to have at least 2 truth electrons with $p_\text{T} > 65$ GeV, |$\eta$| $<$ 2.47, $|d_{0}| > 3$ mm, and $\Delta R_{\ell\ell} > 0.2$. Events are also required to fall into one of the acceptance regions of the triggers used. At generator level, events must have one of the following: one electron with $p_\text{T} >$ 160 GeV, 2 electrons each with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV, or 1 muon with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV and $|\eta| < 1.07$.

Acceptance for $\tilde{\tau}$ of various masses and lifetimes in SR-$e\mu$. Acceptance is defined as the number of accepted events at generator level in signal Monte Carlo simulation divided by the total number of events in the sample. To be accepted, events are required to have at least 2 truth leptons with $p_\text{T} > 65$ GeV, |$\eta$| $<$ 2.5 (2.47) for muons (electrons), $|d_{0}| > 3$ mm, and $\Delta R_{\ell\ell} > 0.2$. Events are also required to fall into one of the acceptance regions of the triggers used. At generator level, events must have one of the following: one electron with $p_\text{T} >$ 160 GeV, 2 electrons each with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV, or 1 muon with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV and $|\eta| < 1.07$.

Acceptance for $\tilde{\tau}$ of various masses and lifetimes in SR-$\mu\mu$. Acceptance is defined as the number of accepted events at generator level in signal Monte Carlo simulation divided by the total number of events in the sample. To be accepted, events are required to have at least 2 truth muons with $p_\text{T} > 65$ GeV, |$\eta$| $<$ 2.5, $|d_{0}| > 3$ mm, and $\Delta R_{\ell\ell} > 0.2$. Events are also required to fall into one of the acceptance regions of the triggers used. At generator level, events must have one of the following: one electron with $p_\text{T} >$ 160 GeV, 2 electrons each with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV, or 1 muon with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV and $|\eta| < 1.07$.

Efficiency for $\tilde{\tau}$ of various masses and lifetimes in SR-$ee$. Efficiency is defined as the number of selected reconstruced events divided by the acceptance. To be accepted, events are required to have at least 2 truth electrons with $p_\text{T} > 65$ GeV, |$\eta$| $<$ 2.47, $|d_{0}| > 3$ mm, and $\Delta R_{\ell\ell} > 0.2$. Events are also required to fall into one of the acceptance regions of the triggers used. At generator level, events must have one of the following: one electron with $p_\text{T} >$ 160 GeV, 2 electrons each with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV, or 1 muon with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV and $|\eta| < 1.07$. To be selected, events must satisfy all signal region requirements.

Efficiency for $\tilde{\tau}$ of various masses and lifetimes in SR-$e\mu$. Efficiency is defined as the number of selected reconstruced events divided by the acceptance. To be accepted, events are required to have at least 2 truth leptons with $p_\text{T} > 65$ GeV, |$\eta$| $<$ 2.5 (2.47) for muons (electrons), $|d_{0}| > 3$ mm, and $\Delta R_{\ell\ell} > 0.2$. Events are also required to fall into one of the acceptance regions of the triggers used. At generator level, events must have one of the following: one electron with $p_\text{T} >$ 160 GeV, 2 electrons each with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV, or 1 muon with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV and $|\eta| < 1.07$. To be selected, events must satisfy all signal region requirements.

Efficiency for $\tilde{\tau}$ of various masses and lifetimes in SR-$\mu\mu$. Efficiency is defined as the number of selected reconstruced events divided by the acceptance. To be accepted, events are required to have at least 2 truth muons with $p_\text{T} > 65$ GeV, |$\eta$| $<$ 2.5, $|d_{0}| > 3$ mm, and $\Delta R_{\ell\ell} > 0.2$. Events are also required to fall into one of the acceptance regions of the triggers used. At generator level, events must have one of the following: one electron with $p_\text{T} >$ 160 GeV, 2 electrons each with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV, or 1 muon with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV and $|\eta| < 1.07$. To be selected, events must satisfy all signal region requirements.

Acceptance as a function of the generator-level $p_\text{T}$ of the leading and subleading lepton in SR-$e\mu$ from $\tilde{\tau}$ decays. The plot is made from signal Monte Carlo events with $\tilde{\ell}$ with mass of 400 GeV and lifetime of 1 ns. To be accepted, events are required to have at least 2 truth leptons with $p_\text{T} > 65$ GeV, |$\eta$| $<$ 2.5 (2.47) for muons (electrons), $|d_{0}| > 3$ mm, and $\Delta R_{\ell\ell} > 0.2$. Events are also required to fall into one of the acceptance regions of the triggers used. At generator level, events must have one of the following: one electron with $p_\text{T} >$ 160 GeV, 2 electrons each with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV, or 1 muon with $p_\text{T} >$ 60 GeV and $|\eta| < 1.07$. The overflow is not shown in these plots.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\ell})$ plane where all slepton flavors and chiralities are mass degenerate.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\ell})$ plane where all slepton flavors and chiralities are mass degenerate.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\ell})$ plane in SR-$ee$ targeting selectron production. Selectrons ($\tilde{e}_{L, R}$) refer to the scalar superpartners of left- and right-handed electrons, which are assumed to be mass degenerate.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\ell})$ plane in SR-$ee$ targeting selectron production. Selectrons ($\tilde{e}_{L, R}$) refer to the scalar superpartners of left- and right-handed electrons, which are assumed to be mass degenerate.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\ell})$ plane in SR-$ee$ targeting selectron production. Selectrons ($\tilde{e}_{L}$) refer to the scalar superpartners of left-handed electrons.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\ell})$ plane in SR-$ee$ targeting selectron production. Selectrons ($\tilde{e}_{L}$) refer to the scalar superpartners of left-handed electrons.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\ell})$ plane in SR-$ee$ targeting selectron production. Selectrons ($\tilde{e}_{R}$) refer to the scalar superpartners of right-handed electrons. Purple denotes the region excluded by LEP.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\ell})$ plane in SR-$ee$ targeting selectron production. Selectrons ($\tilde{e}_{R}$) refer to the scalar superpartners of right-handed electrons. Purple denotes the region excluded by LEP.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\ell})$ plane in SR-$\mu\mu$ targeting smuon production. Smuons ($\tilde{\mu}_{L, R}$) refer to the scalar superpartners of left- and right-handed muons, which are assumed to be mass degenerate.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\ell})$ plane in SR-$\mu\mu$ targeting smuon production. Smuons ($\tilde{\mu}_{L, R}$) refer to the scalar superpartners of left- and right-handed muons, which are assumed to be mass degenerate.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\ell})$ plane in SR-$\mu\mu$ targeting smuon production. Smuons ($\tilde{\mu}_{L}$) refer to the scalar superpartners of left-handed muons.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\ell})$ plane in SR-$\mu\mu$ targeting smuon production. Smuons ($\tilde{\mu}_{L}$) refer to the scalar superpartners of left-handed muons.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\ell})$ plane in SR-$\mu\mu$ targeting smuon production. Smuons ($\tilde{\mu}_{R}$) refer to the scalar superpartners of right-handed muons. Purple denotes the region excluded by LEP.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\ell})$ plane in SR-$\mu\mu$ targeting smuon production. Smuons ($\tilde{\mu}_{R}$) refer to the scalar superpartners of right-handed muons. Purple denotes the region excluded by LEP.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\tau})$ plane. Staus, $\tilde{\tau}_{1,2}$ are the mixed states of the superpartners of the left- and right-handed $\tau$ leptons, with mixing angle $\sin(\theta_{\tilde\tau})=0.95$, which are assumed to be mass degenerate.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\tau})$ plane. Staus, $\tilde{\tau}_{1,2}$ are the mixed states of the superpartners of the left- and right-handed $\tau$ leptons, with mixing angle $\sin(\theta_{\tilde\tau})=0.95$, which are assumed to be mass degenerate.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\tau}_L)$ plane, where $\tilde{\tau}_L$ is the pure-state super-partner of the left-handed $\tau$. Purple denotes the region excluded by LEP. This result does not present signficant sensitivity to the pure-state superpartner of the right-handed $\tau$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity. The limit is displayed in the lifetime vs. $m(\tilde{\tau}_L)$ plane, where $\tilde{\tau}_L$ is the pure-state super-partner of the left-handed $\tau$. Purple denotes the region excluded by LEP. This result does not present signficant sensitivity to the pure-state superpartner of the right-handed $\tau$.

Excitation function at pion c.m. angle THETA=49 deg as function of incident photon energy E. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic, combined in quadrature.

Excitation function at pion c.m. angle THETA=57 deg as function of incident photon energy E. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic, combined in quadrature.

Excitation function at pion c.m. angle THETA=63 deg as function of incident photon energy E. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic, combined in quadrature.

Excitation function at pion c.m. angle THETA=69 deg as function of incident photon energy E. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic, combined in quadrature.

Excitation function at pion c.m. angle THETA=75 deg as function of incident photon energy E. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic, combined in quadrature.

Excitation function at THETA=81 deg as function of incident photon energy E. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic, combined in quadrature.

Excitation function at pion c.m. angle THETA=87 deg as function of incident photon energy E. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic, combined in quadrature.

Excitation function at pion c.m. angle THETA=93 deg as function of incident photon energy E. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic, combined in quadrature.

Excitation function at pion c.m. angle THETA=99 deg as function of incident photon energy E. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic, combined in quadrature.

Excitation function at pion c.m. angle THETA=104 deg as function of incident photon energy E. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic, combined in quadrature.

Excitation function at pion c.m. angle THETA=110 deg as function of incident photon energy E. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic, combined in quadrature.

Excitation function at pion c.m. angle THETA=117 deg as function of incident photon energy E. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic, combined in quadrature.

Excitation function at pion c.m. angle THETA=123 deg as function of incident photon energy E. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic, combined in quadrature.

Excitation function at pion c.m. angle THETA=130 deg as function of incident photon energy E. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic, combined in quadrature.

Excitation function at pion c.m. angle THETA=138 deg as function of incident photon energy E. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic, combined in quadrature.

Excitation function at pion c.m. angle THETA=148 deg as function of incident photon energy E. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic, combined in quadrature.

Excitation function at pion c.m. angle THETA=162 deg as function of incident photon energy E. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic, combined in quadrature.

Total cross section as a function of incident photon energy E.

Excitation function at cos(Theta_pi0)cm = -0.65

Excitation function at cos(Theta_pi0)cm = -0.55

Excitation function at cos(Theta_pi0)cm = -0.45

Excitation function at cos(Theta_pi0)cm = -0.35

Excitation function at cos(Theta_pi0)cm = -0.25

Excitation function at cos(Theta_pi0)cm = -0.15

Excitation function at cos(Theta_pi0)cm = -0.05

Excitation function at cos(Theta_pi0)cm = 0.05

Excitation function at cos(Theta_pi0)cm = 0.15

Excitation function at cos(Theta_pi0)cm = 0.25

Excitation function at cos(Theta_pi0)cm = 0.35

Excitation function at cos(Theta_pi0)cm = 0.45

Excitation function at cos(Theta_pi0)cm = 0.55

Excitation function at cos(Theta_pi0)cm = 0.65

Excitation function at cos(Theta_pi0)cm = 0.75

Excitation function at cos(Theta_pi0)cm = 0.85