95% C.L. observed exclusion contour for all regions combined.

Best expected signal region for signal points.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section for signal points in the signal region with $m_{CT}>150$ GeV.

95% C.L. expected exclusion contour for the $m_{CT}>150 $ GeV region.

95% C.L. observed exclusion contour for the $m_{CT}>150 $ GeV region.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section for signal points in the signal region with $m_{CT}>200$ GeV.

95% C.L. expected exclusion contour for the $m_{CT}>200 $ GeV region.

95% C.L. observed exclusion contour for the $m_{CT}>200 $ GeV region.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section for signal points in the signal region with $m_{CT}>250$ GeV.

95% C.L. expected exclusion contour for the $m_{CT}>250 $ GeV region.

95% C.L. observed exclusion contour for the $m_{CT}>250 $ GeV region.

95% CLs upper limit on model cross-section for signal points in C1.

95% CLs upper limit on model cross-section for signal points in C2.

Acceptance times Efficiency for signal points in the signal region with $m_{CT}>150$ GeV.

Acceptance times Efficiency for signal points in the signal region with $m_{CT}>200$ GeV.

Acceptance times Efficiency for signal points in the signal region with $m_{CT}>250$ GeV.

Acceptance (flavour-blind) for signal points in the signal region with $m_{CT}>150$ GeV.

Acceptance (flavour-blind) for signal points in the signal region with $m_{CT}>200$ GeV.

Acceptance (flavour-blind) for signal points in the signal region with $m_{CT}>250$ GeV.

Signal cross-sections and uncertainties.

Vertex-level efficiency if no re-tracking is performed, as a function of the vertex radial position for an RPV SUSY model of squark production with $\tilde{q}\to q[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to\mu qq]$, where $m(\tilde{q}) = 700$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = 494$ GeV and $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 175 mm. The result with re-tracking is tabulated in http://hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1362183/d1.

Upper limits (95% CL) on the number of DV+muon displaced vertices in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$ and the corresponding vertex-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 7a) for four RPV SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider squark or gluino pair production, with masses in GeV as indicated, with either $\tilde{q}\to q[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to\mu qq]$ or $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to\mu qq]$ decays, respectively.

Upper limits (95% CL) on the number of DV+muon displaced vertices in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$ and the corresponding vertex-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 7b) for four RPV SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider squark or gluino pair production, with masses in GeV as indicated, with either $\tilde{q}\to q\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ or $\tilde{g}\to qq\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays, respectively.

Upper limits (95% CL) on the number of DV+electron displaced vertices in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$ and the corresponding vertex-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 7c) for four RPV SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider squark or gluino pair production, with masses in GeV as indicated, with either $\tilde{q}\to q[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to e qq]$ or $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to e qq]$ decays, respectively.

Upper limits (95% CL) on the number of DV+electron displaced vertices in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$ and the corresponding vertex-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 7d) for four RPV SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider squark or gluino pair production, with masses in GeV as indicated, with either $\tilde{q}\to q\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ or $\tilde{g}\to qq\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays, respectively.

Upper limits (95% CL) on the number of dilepton $e^+e^-$ displaced vertices in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$ and the corresponding vertex-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 5a) for four RPV SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider gluino pair production, with $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to ee\nu]$ decays and masses in GeV as indicated. A dash indicates results omitted due to limited statistical precision.

Upper limits (95% CL) on the number of dilepton $e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}$ displaced vertices in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$ and the corresponding vertex-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 5b) for four RPV SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider gluino pair production, with $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to e\mu\nu]$ decays and masses in GeV as indicated.

Upper limits (95% CL) on the number of $\mu^+\mu^-$ displaced vertices in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$ and the corresponding vertex-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 5c) for four RPV SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider gluino pair production, with $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to \mu\mu\nu]$ decays and masses in GeV as indicated. A dash indicates results omitted due to limited statistical precision.

Upper limits (95% CL) on the number of dilepton ($e^+e^-+e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}+\mu^+\mu^-$) displaced vertices in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$ and the corresponding vertex-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 5d) for two GGM SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider gluino pair production, with $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to Z\tilde{G}]$ decays, $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1100 GeV and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 400 GeV.

Upper limits (95% CL) on the number of dilepton ($e^+e^-+e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}+\mu^+\mu^-$) displaced vertices in 20.3 fb$^{-1}$ and the corresponding vertex-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 5d) for two GGM SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider gluino pair production, with $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to Z\tilde{G}]$ decays, $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1100 GeV and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 1000 GeV.

Upper limits (95% CL) from the dilepton $e^+e^-+e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}$ channels on the production cross-section and the corresponding event-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 6a) for four RPV SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider gluino pair production, with $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to e\mu\nu/ee\nu]$ decays and masses in GeV as indicated. For comparison, the production cross-sections for $m(\tilde{g})$ = 600 GeV and 1300 GeV are $1280\pm230$ fb and $1.7\pm0.7$ fb, respectively.

Upper limits (95% CL) from the dilepton $e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}+\mu^+\mu^-$ channels on the production cross-section and the corresponding event-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 6b) for four RPV SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider gluino pair production, with $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to e\mu\nu/\mu\mu\nu]$ decays and masses in GeV as indicated. For comparison, the production cross-sections for $m(\tilde{g})$ = 600 GeV and 1300 GeV are $1280\pm230$ fb and $1.7\pm0.7$ fb, respectively. A dash indicates results omitted due to limited statistical precision.

Upper limits (95% CL) from the dilepton $e^+e^-+e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}+\mu^+\mu^-$ channels on the production cross-section and the corresponding event-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 6c) for two GGM SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider gluino pair production, with $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to Z\tilde{G}]$ decays, $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1100 GeV and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 400 GeV. For comparison, the production cross-section for $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1100 GeV is $7.6\pm2.8$ fb.

Upper limits (95% CL) from the dilepton $e^+e^-+e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}+\mu^+\mu^-$ channels on the production cross-section and the corresponding event-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 6c) for two GGM SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider gluino pair production, with $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to Z\tilde{G}]$ decays, $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1100 GeV and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 1000 GeV. For comparison, the production cross-section for $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1100 GeV is $7.6\pm2.8$ fb.

Upper limits (95% CL) from the DV+jets channel on the production cross-section and the corresponding event-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 8a) for four RPV SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider squark pair production, with $\tilde{q}\to q\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays, $m(\tilde{q})$ = 700 GeV and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 494 GeV. For comparison, the production cross-section for $m(\tilde{q})$ = 700 GeV is $124\pm17$ fb. A dash indicates where the limit-setting procedure did not converge.

Upper limits (95% CL) from the DV+jets channel on the production cross-section and the corresponding event-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 8b) for four RPV SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider squark pair production, with $\tilde{q}\to q\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays, $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 108 GeV. For comparison, the production cross-section for $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV is $11.9\pm1.5$ fb. A dash indicates where the limit-setting procedure did not converge.

Upper limits (95% CL) from the DV+$E_T^{miss}$ channel on the production cross-section and the corresponding event-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 9a) for two GGM SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider gluino pair production, with $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to Z\tilde{G}]$ decays, $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1100 GeV and a $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass in GeV as indicated. For comparison, the production cross-section for $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1100 GeV is $7.6\pm2.8$ fb.

Upper limits (95% CL) from the DV+jets channel on the production cross-section and the corresponding event-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 9b) for two GGM SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider gluino pair production, with $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to Z\tilde{G}]$ decays, $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1100 GeV and a $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass in GeV as indicated. For comparison, the production cross-section for $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1100 GeV is $7.6\pm2.8$ fb. A dash indicates where the limit-setting procedure did not converge.

Upper limits (95% CL) from the DV+$E_T^{miss}$ channel on the production cross-section and the corresponding event-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 10a) for four split-SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{g}$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider gluino pair production, with $[\tilde{g}\to g/qq \tilde{\chi}_1^0]$ decays, $\tilde{g}$ masses in GeV as indicated and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 100 GeV. For comparison, the production cross-sections for $m(\tilde{g})$ = 400 GeV, 800 GeV and 1400 GeV are $18700\pm2800$ fb, $149\pm31$ fb and $0.71\pm0.32$ fb, respectively.

Upper limits (95% CL) from the DV+jets channel on the production cross-section and the corresponding event-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 10b) for four split-SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{g}$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider gluino pair production, with $[\tilde{g}\to g/qq \tilde{\chi}_1^0]$ decays, $\tilde{g}$ masses in GeV as indicated and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 100 GeV. For comparison, the production cross-sections for $m(\tilde{g})$ = 400 GeV, 800 GeV and 1400 GeV are $18700\pm2800$ fb, $149\pm31$ fb and $0.71\pm0.32$ fb, respectively. A dash indicates where the limit-setting procedure did not converge or the limit is greater than $10^8$ fb.

Upper limits (95% CL) from the DV+$E_T^{miss}$ channel on the production cross-section and the corresponding event-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 10c) for three split-SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{g}$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider gluino pair production, with $[\tilde{g}\to tt \tilde{\chi}_1^0]$ decays, $\tilde{g}$ masses in GeV as indicated and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 100 GeV. For comparison, the production cross-sections for $m(\tilde{g})$ = 600 GeV, 1000 GeV and 1400 GeV are $1270\pm230$ fb, $22\pm6$ fb and $0.71\pm0.32$ fb, respectively.

Upper limits (95% CL) from the DV+jets channel on the production cross-section and the corresponding event-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 10d) for three split-SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{g}$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider gluino pair production, with $[\tilde{g}\to tt \tilde{\chi}_1^0]$ decays, $\tilde{g}$ masses in GeV as indicated and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 100 GeV. For comparison, the production cross-sections for $m(\tilde{g})$ = 600 GeV, 1000 GeV and 1400 GeV are $1270\pm230$ fb, $22\pm6$ fb and $0.71\pm0.32$ fb, respectively. A dash indicates where the limit-setting procedure did not converge.

Upper limits (95% CL) from the DV+$E_T^{miss}$ channel on the production cross-section and the corresponding event-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 10e) for four split-SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{g}$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider gluino pair production, with $[\tilde{g}\to tt \tilde{\chi}_1^0]$ decays, $\tilde{g}$ masses in GeV as indicated and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = $m(\tilde{g}) - 480$ GeV. For comparison, the production cross-sections for $m(\tilde{g})$ = 500 GeV, 800 GeV and 1400 GeV are $4450\pm700$ fb, $149\pm31$ fb and $0.71\pm0.32$ fb, respectively.

Upper limits (95% CL) from the DV+jets channel on the production cross-section and the corresponding event-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 10f) for four split-SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{g}$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider gluino pair production, with $[\tilde{g}\to tt \tilde{\chi}_1^0]$ decays, $\tilde{g}$ masses in GeV as indicated and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = $m(\tilde{g}) - 480$ GeV. For comparison, the production cross-sections for $m(\tilde{g})$ = 500 GeV, 800 GeV and 1400 GeV are $4450\pm700$ fb, $149\pm31$ fb and $0.71\pm0.32$ fb, respectively. A dash indicates where the limit-setting procedure did not converge.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m(\tilde{g})$-$c\tau$ plane for the split-SUSY model with gluino production, $[\tilde{g}\to g/qq \tilde{\chi}_1^0]$ decays and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 100 GeV. These results are obtained from the DV+$E_T^{miss}$ and DV+jets channels, see http://hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1362183/d34 for details.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m(\tilde{g})$-$c\tau$ plane for the split-SUSY model with gluino production, $[\tilde{g}\to g/qq \tilde{\chi}_1^0]$ decays and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 100 GeV. These results are obtained from the DV+$E_T^{miss}$ and DV+jets channels, see http://hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1362183/d34 for details.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m(\tilde{g})$-$c\tau$ plane for the split-SUSY model with gluino production, $[\tilde{g}\to tt \tilde{\chi}_1^0]$ decays and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 100 GeV. These results are obtained from the DV+$E_T^{miss}$ and DV+jets channels, see http://hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1362183/d34 for details.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m(\tilde{g})$-$c\tau$ plane for the split-SUSY model with gluino production, $[\tilde{g}\to tt \tilde{\chi}_1^0]$ decays and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 100 GeV. These results are obtained from the DV+$E_T^{miss}$ and DV+jets channels, see http://hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1362183/d34 for details.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m(\tilde{g})$-$c\tau$ plane for the split-SUSY model with gluino production, $[\tilde{g}\to g/qq \tilde{\chi}_1^0]$ decays and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = $m(\tilde{g})$ - 480 GeV. These results are obtained from the DV+$E_T^{miss}$ and DV+jets channels, see http://hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1362183/d34 for details.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m(\tilde{g})$-$c\tau$ plane for the split-SUSY model with gluino production, $[\tilde{g}\to g/qq \tilde{\chi}_1^0]$ decays and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = $m(\tilde{g})$ - 480 GeV. These results are obtained from the DV+$E_T^{miss}$ and DV+jets channels, see http://hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1362183/d34 for details.

Choice of signal region in the $m(\tilde{g})$-$c\tau$ plane for the split-SUSY models with gluino decays and neutralino masses in GeV as indicated. A value of 1 indicates that the DV+$E_T^{miss}$ channel provided the best expected constraint for that point, while a value of -1 indicates the DV+jets channel. A dash indicates where results were not calculated for a particular mass/lifetime combination.

Upper limits (95% CL) from the DV+$E_T^{miss}$ channel on the production cross-section and the corresponding event-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 11a) for four RPV SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider squark or gluino pair production, with masses in GeV as indicated, with either $\tilde{q}\to q[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to \nu qq]$ or $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to \nu qq]$ decays, respectively. For comparison, the production cross-sections for $m(\tilde{g})$ = 700 GeV, $m(\tilde{q})$ = 700 GeV and $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV are $430\pm80$ fb, $124\pm17$ fb and $11.9\pm1.5$ fb, respectively.

Upper limits (95% CL) from the DV+$E_T^{miss}$ channel on the production cross-section and the corresponding event-level efficiencies (from Auxiliary Figure 11b) for four RPV SUSY models as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ proper decay distance $c\tau$. The models consider squark pair production, with $\tilde{q}\to q\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays and masses in GeV as indicated. For comparison, the production cross-sections for $m(\tilde{q})$ = 700 GeV and 1000 GeV are $124\pm17$ fb and $11.9\pm1.5$ fb, respectively.

Vertex mass distributions in data and one RPV SUSY signal model, for vertices with 3, 4 and $\geq$5 tracks in the DV+muon channel. The entries are the number of DVs in each bin, not normalized according to bin size. The signal model is for squark pair production, with $\tilde{q}\to q[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to\mu qq]$ decays, $m(\tilde{q})$ = 700 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 494 GeV and $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 175 mm.

Vertex mass distributions in data and one GGM SUSY signal model, for vertices with 3, 4 and $\geq$5 tracks in the DV+jets channel. The entries are the number of DVs in each bin, not normalized according to bin size. The signal model is for gluino pair production, with $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to Z\tilde{G}]$ decays, $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1100 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 400 GeV and $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 175 mm.

Vertex mass distributions in data and one RPV SUSY signal model, for vertices with 3, 4 and $\geq$5 tracks in the DV+electron channel. The entries are the number of DVs in each bin, not normalized according to bin size. The signal model is for squark pair production, with $\tilde{q}\to q[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to e qq]$ decays, $m(\tilde{q})$ = 700 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 494 GeV and $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 175 mm.

Vertex mass distributions in data and one split-SUSY signal model, for vertices with 3, 4 and $\geq$5 tracks in the DV+$E_T^{miss}$ channel. The entries are the number of DVs in each bin, not normalized according to bin size. The signal model is for gluino pair production, with $[\tilde{g}\to g/qq \tilde{\chi}_1^0]$ decays, $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 100 GeV and $c\tau(\tilde{g})$ = 175 mm.

Vertex mass distributions in data and one RPV SUSY signal model, for vertices with 0, 1 and $\geq$2 charged leptons in the dilepton $e^+e^-$ channel. The entries are the number of DVs in each bin, not normalized according to bin size. The signal model is for gluino pair production, with $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to e\mu\nu/ee\nu]$ decays, $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1300 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 50 GeV and $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 30 mm.

Vertex mass distributions in data and one RPV SUSY signal model, for vertices with 0, 1 and $\geq$2 charged leptons in the dilepton $e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}$ channel. The entries are the number of DVs in each bin, not normalized according to bin size. The signal model is for gluino pair production, with $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to e\mu\nu/ee\nu]$ decays, $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1300 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 50 GeV and $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 30 mm.

Vertex mass distributions in data and one RPV SUSY signal model, for vertices with 0, 1 and $\geq$2 charged leptons in the dilepton $\mu^+\mu^-$ channel. The entries are the number of DVs in each bin, not normalized according to bin size. The signal model is for gluino pair production, with $\tilde{g}\to qq[\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to e\mu\nu/\mu\mu\nu]$ decays, $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1300 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 50 GeV and $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 30 mm.

Details of sparticle decay modes, model parameters, approximate number of generated events $N_{\rm evts}$ and total production cross-section $\sigma$ for selected models considered in this analysis. The long-lived particle (LLP) is the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ in all cases except for the model used for DV+$E_T^{miss}$, where it is the $\tilde{g}$. Events in some models are filtered to make better use of computing resources, details are given in the original table and the associated efficiency is already taken into account in the quoted cross-sections.

Numbers of events satisfying each selection criterion in turn for the DV+muon channel, using the model listed in http://hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1362183/d44. The ''Filter and trigger'' line includes the requirements placed on the primary vertex.

Numbers of events satisfying each selection criterion in turn for the DV+electron channel, using the model listed in http://hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1362183/d44. The ''Filter and trigger'' line includes the requirements placed on the primary vertex.

Numbers of events satisfying each selection criterion in turn for the DV+jets channel, using the model listed in http://hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1362183/d44. The ''Filter and trigger'' line includes the requirements placed on the primary vertex.

Numbers of events satisfying each selection criterion in turn for the DV+$E_T^{miss}$ channel, using the model listed in http://hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1362183/d44. The ''Filter and trigger'' line includes the requirements placed on the primary vertex.

Numbers of events satisfying each selection criterion in turn for the dilepton $e^+e^-$ channel, using the model listed in http://hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1362183/d44. The ''Trigger'' line includes the event-level cosmic-muon veto and the requirements placed on the primary vertex, but not the offline filter selection. This is included in the ''Lepton reconstruction and DV match'' line, along with all other requirements placed on offline-reconstructed leptons. About 20,000 events of the full sample are analyzed, which contain an equal mixture of $\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}\nu$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \to e^+e^-\nu$ decays.

Numbers of events satisfying each selection criterion in turn for the dilepton $e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}$ channel, using the model listed in http://hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1362183/d44. The ''Trigger'' line includes the event-level cosmic-muon veto and the requirements placed on the primary vertex, but not the offline filter selection. This is included in the ''Lepton reconstruction and DV match'' line, along with all other requirements placed on offline-reconstructed leptons. The sample contains about 50% $\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}\nu$ decays, 25% $\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \to e^+e^-\nu$ and 25% $\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \to \mu^+\mu^-\nu$ decays.

Numbers of events satisfying each selection criterion in turn for the dilepton $\mu^+\mu^-$ channel, using the model listed in http://hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1362183/d44. The ''Trigger'' line includes the event-level cosmic-muon veto and the requirements placed on the primary vertex, but not the offline filter selection. This is included in the ''Lepton reconstruction and DV match'' line, along with all other requirements placed on offline-reconstructed leptons. About 20,000 events of the full sample are analyzed, which contain an equal mixture of $\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}\nu$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \to \mu^+\mu^-\nu$ decays.

Measured jet multiplicity distribution in the $W\mu\nu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured dilepton invariant mass distribution in the $Z\mu\mu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. P P --> Z0 JET(S) X.

Measured $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in the $Z\mu\mu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. P P --> Z0 JET(S) X.

Measured leading jet $p_{T}$ distribution in the $Z\mu\mu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. P P --> Z0 JET(S) X.

Measured jet multiplicity distribution in the $Z\mu\mu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. P P --> Z0 JET(S) X.

Measured transverse mass distribution in the $We\nu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in the $We\nu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured leading jet $p_{T}$ distribution in the $We\nu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured jet multiplicity distribution in the $We\nu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured dilepton invariant mass distribution in the $Zee$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in the $Zee$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured leading jet $p_{T}$ distribution in the $Zee$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured jet multiplicity distribution in the $Zee$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured distribution of the jet multiplicity for the SR1 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of $E_{T}^{miss}$ for the SR1 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of leading jet $p_{T}$ for the SR1 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the leading jet $p_{T}$ to $E_{T}^{miss}$ ratio for the SR1 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the jet multiplicity for SR7 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the jet multiplicity for SR7 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the leading jet $p_T$ for SR7 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the leading jet $p_T$ for SR9 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the leading jet $p_T$ to $E_{T}^{miss}$ ratio for SR7 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the leading jet $p_T$ to $E_{T}^{miss}$ ratio for SR9 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Observed and expected 95$\%$ CL limit on the fundamental Planck scale in $4+n$ dimensions, $M_D$, as a function of the number of extra dimensions. In the figure the two results overlap. The shaded areas around the expected limit indicate the expected $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ ranges of limits in the absence of a signal. The 95$\%$ CL observed limits after the suppression of the events with $\hat{s} > M_D^2$ is applied (truncated) are also given.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the scalar operator D1. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the vector operator D5. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the axial vector operator D8. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the tensor operator D9. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the gluon operator D11. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the gluon operator C5. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Observed 95% CL limits on the suppression scale M* as a function of the mediator mass Mmed, assuming a Z'-like boson in a simplified model and a DM mass of 50 GeV and 400 GeV. The width of the mediator is varied between Mmed/3 and Mmed/8pi.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of couplings of the simplified model vertex in the plane of mediator and WIMP mass (Mmed versus m_chi).

Upper limits at 90% C.L. on the WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section as a function of m_chi for spin-independent interactions, for a coupling strength of unity or the maximum value that keeps the model within its perturbative regime. The truncation procedure is applied for both cases.

Upper limits at 90% C.L. on the WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section as a function of m_chi for spin-dependent interactions, for a coupling strength of unity or the maximum value that keeps the model within its perturbative regime. The truncation procedure is applied for both cases.

Upper limits at 90% C.L. on the WIMP-nucleon annihilation cross section as a function of m_chi, for a coupling strength of unity or the maximum value that keeps the model within its perturbative regime. The truncation procedure is applied for both cases.

95$\%$ CL lower limits on the gravitino mass $m_{\tilde{G}}$ as a function of the squark mass $m_{\tilde{q}}$ for degenerate squark/gluino masses.

95$\%$ CL lower limits on the gravitino mass $m_{\tilde{G}}$ as a function of the squark mass $m_{\tilde{q}}$ for non-degenerate squark/gluino masses: $ m_{\tilde{g}} = 1/2 \times m_{\tilde{q}}$.

95$\%$ CL lower limits on the gravitino mass $m_{\tilde{G}}$ as a function of the squark mass $m_{\tilde{q}}$ for non-degenerate squark/gluino masses: $ m_{\tilde{g}} = 1/4 \times m_{\tilde{q}}$.

95$\%$ CL lower limits on the gravitino mass $m_{\tilde{G}}$ as a function of the squark mass $m_{\tilde{q}}$ for non-degenerate squark/gluino masses: $ m_{\tilde{g}} = 2 \times m_{\tilde{q}}$.

95$\%$ CL lower limits on the gravitino mass $m_{\tilde{G}}$ as a function of the squark mass $m_{\tilde{q}}$ for non-degenerate squark/gluino masses: $ m_{\tilde{g}} = 4 \times m_{\tilde{q}}$.

Observed and expected 95$\%$ CL upper limit on $\sigma \times {\rm{BR}}(H \to {\rm{invisible}})$ as a function of the Higgs boson mass.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the scalar operator C1. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Expected exclusion limits in the gluino-neutralino mass plane, for the higgsino-bino GGM model with $\mu < 0$, using the merged $\rm{SR}^{\gamma b}_{L}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma b}_{H}$ analyses.

Observed exclusion limits in the $M_3$-$\mu$ plane, for the higgsino-bino GGM model with $\mu > 0$, using the merged $\rm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ analyses.

Expected exclusion limits in the $M_3$-$\mu$ plane, for the higgsino-bino GGM model with $\mu > 0$, using the merged $\rm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ analyses.

Contour of exclusion in wino production cross section from the photon+$\ell$ analysis, as a function of the wino mass parameter $m_{\tilde{W}}$. The expected limit is shown along with its $\pm 1$ and $\pm 2$ standard deviation values.

Numbers of selected data events at progressive stages of the selection, for each SR for the diphoton, photon+j and photon+$\ell$ analyses. Where no number is shown the cut was not applied.

Expected number of signal events at progressive stages of the selection, shown for points in the parameter space that typify the region for which each selection of the diphoton, photon+j and photon+$\ell$ analyses is optimized, and scaled to an integrated luminosity of $20.3\,\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$. Where no number is shown the cut was not applied.

Expected number of signal events at progressive stages of the $\rm{SR}^{\gamma b}_{H}$ selection, shown for data and signal Monte Carlo datasets.

Expected number of signal events at progressive stages of the $\rm{SR}^{\gamma b}_{L}$ selection, shown for data and signal Monte Carlo datasets.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency across the strong-production parameter space, for $m_{\tilde{g}}$ between 1550 and 1600 GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency across the strong-production parameter space, for $m_{\tilde{g}} = 1500$ GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency across the strong-production parameter space, for $m_{\tilde{g}}$ between 1350 and 1450 GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency across the strong-production parameter space, for $m_{\tilde{g}}$ between 1250 and 1300 GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency across the strong-production parameter space, for $m_{\tilde{g}}$ between 1150 and 1200 GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency across the strong-production parameter space, for $m_{\tilde{g}}$ between 1000 and 1100 GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency for $m_{\tilde{W}}$ between 650 and 800 GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency for $m_{\tilde{W}}$ between 400 and 600 GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency for $m_{\tilde{W}}$ between 100 and 400 GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma b}_{H}$ signal acceptance*efficiency for combined strong and weak production across the $\mu<0$ higgsino-bino parameter space.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma b}_{L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency for combined strong and weak production across the $\mu<0$ higgsino-bino parameter space.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ signal acceptance*efficiency for combined strong and weak production across the $\mu>0$ higgsino-bino parameter space.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency for combined strong and weak production across the $\mu>0$ higgsino-bino parameter space.

Acceptance-times-efficiency (a*e) for the photon+$\ell$ analysis SRs.

The total NLO+NLL strong production cross sections with uncertainties for GGM gluino-neutralino signal points for the diphoton and photon+b analyses. In the variant of the grid used in the diphoton analysis, the electroweak production cross section is negligible.

The total NLO cross sections with uncertainties for GGM wino-bino signal points, for all final states, for the diphoton analysis. The direct bino production cross section is negligible.

The NLO gaugino pair production cross sections with relative uncertainties for GGM gluino-neutralino signal points for the photon+b analysis.

The best signal region used for each signal point in the photon+b analysis.

The total NLO+NLL cross sections with uncertainties for the strong production GGM signal grid for the photon+j analysis.

The total NLO cross sections with uncertainties for the electroweak production GGM signal grid for the photon+j analysis.

The best signal region used for each signal point in the photon+j analysis.

Combined exclusion limits assuming that the stop decays through $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde{\chi}_1^0 $ with branching ratio x and through $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b + \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm $ with branching ratio 1-x. This table is for the observed limit for BR=75% - Observed limit x=BR=100% See Fig 24. hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d63 - Expected limit x=BR=100% See Fig 24. hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d64.

Combined exclusion limits assuming that the stop decays through $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde{\chi}_1^0 $ with branching ratio x and through $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b + \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm $ with branching ratio 1-x. This table is for the expected limit for BR=75% - Observed limit x=BR=100% See Fig 24. hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d63 - Expected limit x=BR=100% See Fig 24. hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d64.

Combined exclusion limits assuming that the stop decays through $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde{\chi}_1^0 $ with branching ratio x and through $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b + \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm $ with branching ratio 1-x. Observed limit for BR=50% - Observed limit x=BR=100% See Fig 24. hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d63 - Expected limit x=BR=100% See Fig 24. hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d64.

Combined exclusion limits assuming that the stop decays through $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde{\chi}_1^0 $ with branching ratio x and through $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b + \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm $ with branching ratio 1-x. Expected limit for BR=50% - Observed limit x=BR=100% See Fig 24. hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d63 - Expected limit x=BR=100% See Fig 24. hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d64.

Combined exclusion limits assuming that the stop decays through $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde{\chi}_1^0 $ with branching ratio x and through $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b + \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm $ with branching ratio 1-x. Observed limit for BR=25% - Observed limit x=BR=100% See Fig 24. hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d63 - Expected limit x=BR=100% See Fig 24. hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d64.

Combined exclusion limits assuming that the stop decays through $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde{\chi}_1^0 $ with branching ratio x and through $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b + \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm $ with branching ratio 1-x. Expected limit for BR=25% - Observed limit x=BR=100% See Fig 24. hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d63 - Expected limit x=BR=100% See Fig 24. hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d64.

Combined exclusion limits assuming that the stop decays through $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde{\chi}_1^0 $ with branching ratio x and through $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b + \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm $ with branching ratio 1-x. Observed limit for BR=0% - Observed limit x=BR=100% See Fig 24. hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d63 - Expected limit x=BR=100% See Fig 24. hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d64.

Combined exclusion limits assuming that the stop decays through $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde{\chi}_1^0 $ with branching ratio x and through $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b + \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm $ with branching ratio 1-x. Expected limit for BR=0% - Observed limit x=BR=100% See Fig 24. hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d63 - Expected limit x=BR=100% See Fig 24. hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d64.

Summary of the ATLAS Run 1 searches for direct stop pair production in models where the decay mode $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}$ with $ \tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm} \rightarrow W \tilde{\chi_1^0}$ is assumed with a branching ratio of 100%. Limits for the b0L and t1L soft-lepton analyses in two scenarios Delta M = 5 GeV in light green and Delta M = 20 GeV in dark green), for a total of four limits - dM=5 GeV, b0L observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1247462/d19 - dM=5 GeV, b0L expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1247462/d22 - dM=5 GeV, t1L observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d40 - dM=5 GeV, t1L expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d41 - dM=20 GeV, b0L observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1247462/d25 - dM=20 GeV, b0L expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1247462/d28 - dM=20 GeV, t1L observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d43 - dM=20 GeV, t1L expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d44.

Summary of the ATLAS Run 1 searches for direct stop pair production in models where the decay mode $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}$ with $ \tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm} \rightarrow W \tilde{\chi_1^0}$ is assumed with a branching ratio of 100%.Limits for the b0L, t1L and t2L analyses in scenarios with a fixed chargino mass of 106 GeV (dark green) and 150 GeV (light green) - M(ch1)=150 GeV, b0L observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1247462/d13 - M(ch1)=150 GeV, b0L expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1247462/d16 - M(ch1)=150 GeV, t1L observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d34 - M(ch1)=150 GeV, t1L expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d35 - M(ch1)=106 GeV, t1L observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d37 - M(ch1)=106 GeV, t1L expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d38 - M(ch1)=106 GeV, t2L observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286444/d25 - M(ch1)=106 GeV, t2L expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286444/d26.

Summary of the ATLAS Run 1 searches for direct stop pair production in models where the decay mode $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}$ with $ \tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm} \rightarrow W \tilde{\chi_1^0}$ is assumed with a branching ratio of 100%.Limits for the t1L and t2L analyses in scenarios with the mass of the chargino set to twice the mass of the neutralino - M(ch1)=2M(chi0), t1L observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d31 - M(ch1)=2M(chi0), t1L expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d32 - M(ch1)=2M(chi0), t2L observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286444/d16 - M(ch1)=2M(chi0), t2L expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286444/d17.

Summary of the ATLAS Run 1 searches for direct stop pair production in models where the decay mode $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}$ with $ \tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm} \rightarrow W \tilde{\chi_1^0}$ is assumed with a branching ratio of 100%.Limits for the t1L and t2L and WW analyses in scenarios with the mass difference between chargino and neutralino is 10 GeV - dM=10 GeV, t1L observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d46 - dM=10 GeV, t1L expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d47 - dM=10 GeV, t2L observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286444/d10 - dM=10 GeV, t2L expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286444/d11 - dM=10 GeV, WW observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d45 - dM=10 GeV, WW expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1380183/d46.

Exclusion limits assuming that the stop decays through $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b + \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm + W^{(*)} + \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with branching ratio of 100% assuming a fixed stop mass of 300 GeV. - t1L observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d49 - t1L expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d50 - b0L observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1247462/d7 - b0L expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1247462/d10.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL in the scenario where $\tilde{t}_2$ pair production is assumed, followed by the decay $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow Z \tilde{t}_1$ or $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow \tilde{t}_1 h$ and then by $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with a branching ratio of 100%, as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass. The $\tilde{t}_1$ mass is 180 GeV larger than the neutralino mass. This table is for the t2t1H observed limit. - t2t1Z observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d11 - t2t1Z expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d8.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL in the scenario where $\tilde{t}_2$ pair production is assumed, followed by the decay $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow Z \tilde{t}_1$ or $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow \tilde{t}_1 h$ and then by $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with a branching ratio of 100%, as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass. The $\tilde{t}_1$ mass is 180 GeV larger than the neutralino mass. This table is for the t2t1H expected limit. - t2t1Z observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d11 - t2t1Z expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d8.

Exclusion limits as a function of the stop2 branching ratio for decays into Z, Higgs and neutralino. m(t2)=350 GeV and m(chi1)=20 GeV (top plot). This table is for the t2t1H observed limit. - t2t1Z observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d14 - t2t1Z expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d15.

Exclusion limits as a function of the stop2 branching ratio for decays into Z, Higgs and neutralino. m(t2)=350 GeV and m(chi1)=20 GeV (top plot). This table is for the t2t1H expected limit. - t2t1Z observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d14 - t2t1Z expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d15.

Exclusion limits as a function of the stop2 branching ratio for decays into Z, Higgs and neutralino. m(t2)=350 GeV and m(chi1)=20 GeV (top plot). This table is for the t1L/t0L observed limit. - t2t1Z observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d14 - t2t1Z expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d15.

Exclusion limits as a function of the stop2 branching ratio for decays into Z, Higgs and neutralino. m(t2)=350 GeV and m(chi1)=20 GeV (top plot). This table is for the t1L/t0L expected limit. - t2t1Z observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d14 - t2t1Z expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d15.

Exclusion limits as a function of the stop2 branching ratio for decays into Z, Higgs and neutralino. m(t2)=500 GeV and m(chi1)=20 GeV (top plot). This table is for the t2t1H observed limit. - t2t1Z observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d16 - t2t1Z expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d17.

Exclusion limits as a function of the stop2 branching ratio for decays into Z, Higgs and neutralino. m(t2)=500 GeV and m(chi1)=20 GeV (top plot). This table is for the t2t1H expected limit. - t2t1Z observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d16 - t2t1Z expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d17.

Exclusion limits as a function of the stop2 branching ratio for decays into Z, Higgs and neutralino. m(t2)=500 GeV and m(chi1)=20 GeV (top plot). This table is for the t1L/t0L observed limit. - t2t1Z observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d16 - t2t1Z expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d17.

Exclusion limits as a function of the stop2 branching ratio for decays into Z, Higgs and neutralino. m(t2)=500 GeV and m(chi1)=20 GeV (top plot). This table is for the t1Lt0L expected limit. - t2t1Z observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d16 - t2t1Z expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d17.

Exclusion limits as a function of the stop2 branching ratio for decays into Z, Higgs and neutralino. m(t2)=500 GeV and m(chi1)=120 GeV (top plot). This table is for the t2t1H observed limit. - t2t1Z observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d18 - t2t1Z expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d19.

Exclusion limits as a function of the stop2 branching ratio for decays into Z, Higgs and neutralino. m(t2)=500 GeV and m(chi1)=120 GeV (top plot). This table is for the t2t1H expected limit. - t2t1Z observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d18 - t2t1Z expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d19.

Exclusion limits as a function of the stop2 branching ratio for decays into Z, Higgs and neutralino. m(t2)=500 GeV and m(chi1)=120 GeV (top plot). This table is for the t1L/t0L observed limit. - t2t1Z observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d18 - t2t1Z expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d19.

Exclusion limits as a function of the stop2 branching ratio for decays into Z, Higgs and neutralino. m(t2)=500 GeV and m(chi1)=120 GeV (top plot). This table is for the t1Lt0L expected limit. - t2t1Z observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d18 - t2t1Z expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286622/d19.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on sbottom pair production where the sbottom is assumed to decay as b1->b chi10 with a branching ratio of 100%. - b0L observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1247462/d1 - b0L expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1247462/d4 - tc observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304459 (root macro) - tc expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304459 (root macro).

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for a scenario where sbottoms are pair produced and decay as b1 -> t chi1+ with a BR of 100% - SS3L observed limit (mchi+=60 GeV): hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/resource/6164/finalExclusionGraphs/SBottomTopCharginoN60_observed.C - SS3L expected limit (mchi+=60 GeV): hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/resource/6164/finalExclusionGraphs/SBottomTopCharginoN60_expected.C - SS3L observed limit (mchi+=2 mchi0): hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/resource/6164/finalExclusionGraphs/SBottomTopCharginoNhalfC_observed.C - SS3L expected limit (mchi+=2 mchi0): hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/resource/6164/finalExclusionGraphs/SBottomTopCharginoNhalfC_expected.C.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL for a scenario where sbottoms are pair produced and decay as b1 -> b chi2 with a BR of 100% - g3b observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304457/d10 - g3b expected limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304457/d11.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits for the naturalness-inspired set of pMSSM models from the combination t0L, t1L and tb analyses using the signal region yielding the smallest CLs value for the signal- plus-background hypothesis. This table is for the observed limit.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits for the naturalness-inspired set of pMSSM models from the combination t0L, t1L and tb analyses using the signal region yielding the smallest CLs value for the signal- plus-background hypothesis. This table is for the expected limit.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits for the pMSSM model with well-tempered neutralinos as a function of M1 and mqL3. The limit is obtained as the combination of the t0L, t1L, tb and SS3L analyses, This table is for the observed limit.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits for the pMSSM model with well-tempered neutralinos as a function of M1 and mqL3. The limit is obtained as the combination of the t0L, t1L, tb and SS3L analyses, This table is for the expected limit.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits for the pMSSM model with well-tempered neutralinos as a function of M1 and mtR. The limit is obtained using the t0L analysis. This table is for the observed limit.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits for the pMSSM model with well-tempered neutralinos as a function of M1 and mtR. The limit is obtained using the t0L analysis. This table is for the expected limit.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits for the set of h/Z-enriched pMSSM models as a function of $\mu$ and m(qL3). The limit of is obtained as the combination of the t0L, g3b, t2t1Z and SS3L analyses, This table is for the observed limit.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits for the set of h/Z-enriched pMSSM models as a function of $\mu$ and m(qL3). The limit of is obtained as the combination of the t0L, g3b, t2t1Z and SS3L analyses, This table is for the expected limit.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits for the set of h/Z-enriched pMSSM models as a function of $\mu$ and m(bR). The limit of is obtained as the combination of thet0L, t2t1Z and tb analyses, This table is for the observed limit.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits for the set of h/Z-enriched pMSSM models as a function of $\mu$ and m(bR). The limit of is obtained as the combination of thet0L, t2t1Z and tb analyses, This table is for the expected limit.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on the signal strength mu (defined as the ratio of the obtained stop cross section to the theoretical prediction) for the production of stop pairs as a function of m(stop). The stop is assumed to decay as t1->t chi0 or through its three-body decay depending on its mass. The neutralino is assumed to have a mass of 1 GeV.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL in the scenario where both pair-produced stop decay exclusively via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b \chi^\pm_1$ followed by $\chi^\pm_1 \rightarrow W \chi_1^0$ with $\Delta m(t_1, \chi_1^0)$ = 10 GeV. This table is for the observed limit.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL in the scenario where both pair-produced stop decay exclusively via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b \chi^\pm_1$ followed by $\chi^\pm_1 \rightarrow W \chi_1^0$ with $\Delta m(t_1, \chi_1^0)$ = 10 GeV. This table is for the expected limit.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL in the scenario where both pair-produced stop decay exclusively via three-body or four-body decay (depending on the neutralino and stop mass). This table is for the observed limit. - t1L observed limit (3-body) hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d25 - t1L observed limit (4-body) hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d28 - t2L observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286444/d23.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL in the scenario where both pair-produced stop decay exclusively via three-body or four-body decay (depending on the neutralino and stop mass). This table is for the expected limit. - t1L observed limit (3-body) hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d25 - t1L observed limit (4-body) hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1304456/d28 - t2L observed limit hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1286444/d23.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the tb signal regions for simplified models with stop decays into both stop1->t chi10 and stop1-> b ch1 for BR(stop1->t chi10) = 25% and DM=5GeV. This table is for the Observed limit.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the tb signal regions for simplified models with stop decays into both stop1->t chi10 and stop1-> b ch1 for BR(stop1->t chi10) = 25% and DM=5GeV. This table is for the Expected limit.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the tb signal regions for simplified models with stop decays into both stop1->t chi10 and stop1-> b ch1 for BR(stop1->t chi10) = 25% and DM=20 GeV. This table is for the Observed limit.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the tb signal regions for simplified models with stop decays into both stop1->t chi10 and stop1-> b ch1 for BR(stop1->t chi10) = 25% and DM=20 GeV. This table is for the Expected limit.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the tb signal regions for simplified models with stop decays into both stop1->t chi10 and stop1-> b ch1 for BR(stop1->t chi10) = 50% and DM=5GeV. This table is for the Observed limit.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the tb signal regions for simplified models with stop decays into both stop1->t chi10 and stop1-> b ch1 for BR(stop1->t chi10) = 50% and DM=5 GeV. This table is for the Expected limit.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the tb signal regions for simplified models with stop decays into both stop1->t chi10 and stop1-> b ch1 for BR(stop1->t chi10) = 50% and DM=20GeV. This table is for the Observed limit.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the tb signal regions for simplified models with stop decays into both stop1->t chi10 and stop1-> b ch1 for BR(stop1->t chi10) = 50% and DM=20 GeV. This table is for the Expected limit.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the tb signal regions for simplified models with stop decays into both stop1->t chi10 and stop1-> b ch1 for BR(stop1->t chi10) = 75% and DM=5GeV. This table is for the Observed limit.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the tb signal regions for simplified models with stop decays into both stop1->t chi10 and stop1-> b ch1 for BR(stop1->t chi10) = 75% and DM=5 GeV. This table is for the Expected limit.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the tb signal regions for simplified models with stop decays into both stop1->t chi10 and stop1-> b ch1 for BR(stop1->t chi10) = 75% and DM=20GeV. This table is for the Observed limit.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the tb signal regions for simplified models with stop decays into both stop1->t chi10 and stop1-> b ch1 for BR(stop1->t chi10) = 75% and DM=20 GeV. This table is for the Expected limit.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the tb signal regions in the natural pMSSM model. This table is for the Observed limit.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the tb signal regions in the natural pMSSM model. This table is for the Expected limit.

Combined exclusion limits at 95% CL in the scenario where both stops decay exclusively via $\tilde t_1 \rightarrow t \tilde \chi_1^0 $. Observed limit contour line for the t0L/t1L combination.

Combined exclusion limits at 95% CL in the scenario where both stops decay exclusively via $\tilde t_1 \rightarrow t \tilde \chi_1^0 $. Expected limit contour line for the t0L/t1L combination.

Best expected SR for the WW analysis and the three- and four-body decays.

Cross-section upper limit for the WW analysis and the three- and four-body decays.

Expected CLs for the WW analysis and the 3- and 4-body decays.

Observed CLs for the WW analysis and the 3- and 4-body decays.

Best expected SR for the WW analysis and the stop1->chargino1 decay.

Cross section upper limit for the WW analysis and the stop1->chargino1 decay.

Expected CLs for the WW analysis and the stop1->chargino1 decay.

Observed CLs for the WW analysis and the stop1->chargino1 decay.

Cross section upper limit for the t2t1h analysis.

Expected CLs for the t2t1h analysis.

Observed CLs for the t2t1h analysis.

Best expected SR for the tb analysis in the pMSSM model.

Cross section upper limit for the tb analysis in the pMSSM model.

Efficiency for the SRinA signal region for the pMSSM model.

Efficiency for the SRinB signal region for the pMSSM model.

Efficiency for the SRinC signal region for the pMSSM model.

Efficiency for the SRexA signal region for the pMSSM model.

Best expected SR for the tb analysis in the simplified model with Delta(m) = 5 GeV and BR=50%.

Cross section upper limit for the tb analysis in the simplified model with Delta(m) = 5 GeV and BR=50%.

Best expected SR for the tb analysis in the simplified model with Delta(m) = 20 GeV and BR=50%.

Cross section upper limit for the tb analysis in the simplified model with Delta(m) = 20 GeV and BR=50%.

Best expected SR and cross section upper limit for the tb analysis in the simplified model with Delta(m) = 5 GeV and BR=25%.

Best expected SR and cross section upper limit for the tb analysis in the simplified model with Delta(m) = 20 GeV and BR=25%.

Best expected SR and cross section upper limit for the tb analysis in the simplified model with Delta(m) = 5 GeV and BR=75%.

Best expected SR and cross section upper limit for the tb analysis in the simplified model with Delta(m) = 20 GeV and BR=75%.

Exclusion limits for the naturalness-inspired set of pMSSM models from the combination t0L, t1L and tb analyses using the signal region yielding the smallest CLs value for the signal- plus-background hypothesis. This table is for the best expected signal region.

95% CL exclusion limits for the pMSSM model with well-tempered neutralinos as a function of M1 and mqL3. The limit is obtained as the combination of the t0L, t1L, tb and SS3L analyses, This table is for the best expected signal region.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits for the pMSSM model with well-tempered neutralinos as a function of M1 and mtR. The limit is obtained using the t0L analysis. This table is for the best expected signal region.

95% CL exclusion limits for the set of h/Z-enriched pMSSM models as a function of $\mu$ and m(qL3). The limit of is obtained as the combination of the t0L, g3b, t2t1Z and SS3L analyses, This table is for the best expected signal region.

95% CL exclusion limits for the set of h/Z-enriched pMSSM models as a function of $\mu$ and m(bR). The limit of is obtained as the combination of the t0L, t2t1Z and tb analyses, This table is for the best expected signal region.

Ratio of the Z'NU to Z'SSM acceptance times efficiency (ACC*EFF) in the lep-had channel as a function of sin^2phi and the Z' mass.

Z' SSM acceptance (ACC) and product of acceptance and efficiency (ACC*EFF) for the had-had and lep-had selections as a function of the Z' mass.

Number of expected Z'SSM signal (NS), background (NB) and observed (N) events passing the total transverse mass ($m_{\rm T}^{\rm tot}$) threshold in the had-had and lep-had channels.

Median expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction to tau+tau- for Z'SSM production for the exclusive had-had and lep-had channels, and for both channels combined.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction to tau+tau- for Z'L and Z'R production for the combination of the had-had and lep-had channels.

Observed 95% CL lower limit on the Z'NU mass as a function of sin^2(phi).

The stransverse mass mT2 in the W+jets validation region VR2 for the two-tau MVA analysis.

The BDT response prior to applying the SR BDT requirement for the two-tau MVA analysis.

The missing transverse energy ETmiss in the two-tau MVA signal region.

The effective mass meff in the two-tau MVA signal region.

The stransverse mass mT2 in the two-tau MVA signal region.

The ratio R2 in the signal region SR2l-1a SF from the two-lepton, opposite-sign analysis, prior to the requirement on this variable.

The ratio R2 in the signal region SR2l-1a DF from the two-lepton, opposite-sign analysis, prior to the requirement on this variable.

The super razor quantity MdR in the signal region SR2l-1b SF from the two-lepton, opposite-sign analysis, prior to the requirement on this variable.

The super razor quantity MdR in the signal region SR2l-1b DF from the two-lepton, opposite-sign analysis, prior to the requirement on this variable.

The separation in phi between the leading jet and the missing transverse momentum dPhi(jet 1,ETmiss) in the ISR validation region of the two-lepton, same-sign MVA analysis.

The transverse mass using the leading lepton mTlep1 in the ISR validation region of the two-lepton, same-sign MVA analysis.

The transverse mass using the second leading lepton mTlep2 in the no-ISR validation region of the two-lepton, same-sign MVA analysis.

The scalar sum of the pT of the leptons and jets, HT in the no-ISR validation region of the two-lepton, same-sign MVA analysis.

The three-lepton invariant mass mlll in the validation region VR3l-0a from the three-lepton analysis.

The missing transverse energy ETmiss in the validation region VR3l-0b from the three-lepton analysis.

The transverse momentum of the leading jet pTjet1 in the validation region VR3l-1a from the three-lepton analysis.

The missing transverse energy ETmiss in the validation region VR3l-1b from the three-lepton analysis.

The missing transverse energy ETmiss in the signal region SR3l-0a from the three-lepton analysis.

The three-lepton invariant mass mlll in the signal region SR3l-0b from the three-lepton analysis.

The separation in phi between the leading jet and the missing transverse momentum dPhi(jet 1,ETmiss) in the signal region SR3l-1a from the three-lepton analysis.

The transverse momentum of the leading jet pTjet1 in the signal region SR3l-1b from the three-lepton analysis.

The transverse momentum of the second leading jet pTjet2 in the VV validation region from the same-sign two-lepton VBF analysis.

The invariant mass of the two leading jets mjj in the VV validation region from the same-sign two-lepton VBF analysis.

The transverse momentum of the second leading lepton pTlep2 in the Fakes validation region from the same-sign two-lepton VBF analysis.

The missing transverse momentum ETmiss in the Fakes validation region from the same-sign two-lepton VBF analysis.

The invariant mass of the two leading jets mjj in the same-sign, two lepton VBF signal region.

The separation in eta between the two leading jets dEtajj in the same-sign, two lepton VBF signal region.

The missing transverse energy ETmiss in the same-sign, two lepton VBF signal region.

The transverse momentum of the second leading lepton pTlep2 in the same-sign, two lepton VBF signal region.

The 95% CL exclusion limits (expected and observed) on the cross-section for production of left- and right-handed stau pairs for various LSP masses.

The 95% CL exclusion limits (expected and observed) on the cross-section for CHARGINO1+ CHARGINO1- production with SLEPTONL-mediated decays, where the LSP is massless and the intermediate slepton mass is set to 5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 95% of the CHARGINO1+- mass (x).

The expected 95% CL exclusion limits for CHARGINO1+ CHARGINO1- production with SLEPTONL-mediated decays as a function of the CHARGINO1+- and NEUTRALINO1 masses.

The observed 95% CL exclusion limits for CHARGINO1+ CHARGINO1- production with SLEPTONL-mediated decays as a function of the CHARGINO1+- and NEUTRALINO1 masses.

The expected and observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the cross-section for VBF CHARGINO1+-CHARGINO1+- production, as a function of the CHARGINO1-NEUTRALINO1 mass difference, for a CHARGINO1+- of 110 GeV.

The 95% CL exclusion limits (expected and observed) on the cross-section for NEUTRALINO2 NEUTRALINO3 production with SLEPTONR-mediated decays, where the LSP is massless and the intermediate slepton mass is set to 5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 95% of the NEUTRALINO2 mass (x).

The expected 95% CL exclusion limits for NEUTRALINO2 NEUTRALINO3 production with SLEPTONR-mediated decays as a function of the NEUTRALINO2 and NEUTRALINO1 masses.

The observed 95% CL exclusion limits for NEUTRALINO2 NEUTRALINO3 production with SLEPTONR-mediated decays as a function of the NEUTRALINO2 and NEUTRALINO1 masses.

The 95% CL exclusion limits (expected and observed) on the cross-section for CHARGINO1+- NEUTRALINO2 production with SLEPTONL-mediated decays, where the LSP is massless and the intermediate slepton mass is set to 5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 95% of the CHARGINO1+- mass (x).

The expected 95% CL exclusion limits for CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 production with SLEPTONL-mediated decays (x=0.50) as a function of the NEUTRALINO2 and NEUTRALINO1 masses.

The observed 95% CL exclusion limits for CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 production with SLEPTONL-mediated decays (x=0.50) as a function of the NEUTRALINO2 and NEUTRALINO1 masses.

The expected 95% CL exclusion limits for CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 production with SLEPTONL-mediated decays (x=0.95) as a function of the NEUTRALINO2 and NEUTRALINO1 masses.

The observed 95% CL exclusion limits for CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 production with SLEPTONL-mediated decays (x=0.95) as a function of the NEUTRALINO2 and NEUTRALINO1 masses.

The expected 95% CL exclusion limits for CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 production with STAU-mediated decays as a function of the NEUTRALINO2 and NEUTRALINO1 masses.

The observed 95% CL exclusion limits for CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 production with STAU-mediated decays as a function of the NEUTRALINO2 and NEUTRALINO1 masses.

The expected 95% CL exclusion limits in the pMSSM scenario.

The observed 95% CL exclusion limits in the pMSSM scenario.

The expected 95% CL exclusion limits in the NUHM2 scenario.

The observed 95% CL exclusion limits in the NUHM2 scenario.

The expected 95% CL exclusion limits in the GMSB scenario.

The observed 95% CL exclusion limits in the GMSB scenario.

The best expected signal region in the direct STAUL STAUL SUSY model, where "1" indicates the two-tau MVA signal region is used, and "2" indicates the previously published signal regions are used.

The number of generated events in the direct STAUL STAUL SUSY model.

The cross-section in the direct STAUL STAUL SUSY model.

The experimental uncertainty in the two-tau MVA signal region in the direct STAUL STAUL SUSY model.

The expected CLs in the two-tau MVA signal region in the direct STAUL STAUL SUSY model.

The observed CLs in the two-tau MVA signal region in the direct STAUL STAUL SUSY model.

The 95% CL upper limit on the SUSY cross-section in the CHARGINO1+CHARGINO1- SUSY model using the opposite-sign, two-lepton analysis.

The best expected signal region in the CHARGINO1+CHARGINO1- SUSY model using the opposite-sign, two-lepton analysis, where "1" denotes SR2l-1a and "2" denotes SR2l-1b.

The number of generated events in the CHARGINO1+CHARGINO1- SUSY model.

The total cross-section in the CHARGINO1+CHARGINO1- SUSY model.

The acceptance for the opposite-sign, two-lepton signal region SR2l-1b in the CHARGINO1+CHARGINO1- SUSY model.

The efficiency for the opposite-sign, two-lepton signal region SR2l-1b in the CHARGINO1+CHARGINO1- SUSY model.

The experimental uncertainty for the opposite-sign, two-lepton signal region SR2l-1b in the CHARGINO1+CHARGINO1- SUSY model.

The expected CLs for the opposite-sign, two-lepton signal region SR2l-1b in the CHARGINO1+CHARGINO1- SUSY model.

The observed CLs for the opposite-sign, two-lepton signal region SR2l-1b in the CHARGINO1+CHARGINO1- SUSY model.

The number of generated events in the VBF CHARGINO1+- CHARGINO1+- VBF SUSY model, where m(CHARGINO1+-)=m(NEUTRALINO2) and x=0.5.

The total cross-section in the VBF CHARGINO1+- CHARGINO1+- SUSY model, where m(CHARGINO1+-)=m(NEUTRALINO2) and x=0.5.

The acceptance for the same-sign, two-lepton VBF signal region in the VBF CHARGINO1+- CHARGINO1+- SUSY model, where m(CHARGINO1+-)=m(NEUTRALINO2) and x=0.5.

The efficiency for the same-sign, two-lepton VBF signal region in the VBF CHARGINO1+- CHARGINO1+- SUSY model, where m(CHARGINO1+-)=m(NEUTRALINO2) and x=0.5.

The experimental uncertainty for the same-sign, two-lepton VBF signal region in the VBF CHARGINO1+- CHARGINO1+- SUSY model, where m(CHARGINO1+-)=m(NEUTRALINO2) and x=0.5.

The expected CLs for the same-sign, two-lepton VBF signal region in the VBF CHARGINO1+- CHARGINO1+- SUSY model, where m(CHARGINO1+-)=m(NEUTRALINO2) and x=0.5.

The observed CLs for the same-sign, two-lepton VBF signal region in the VBF CHARGINO1+- CHARGINO1+- SUSY model, where m(CHARGINO1+-)=m(NEUTRALINO2) and x=0.5.

The best expected signal region in the same-sign, two-lepton MVA analysis for the CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 SUSY model (x=0.5), where "1" indicates SR dM20, "2" indicates SR dM35, "3" indicates SR dM65, and "4" indicates SR dM100.

The number of generated events in the CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 SUSY model (x=0.5).

The total cross-section in the CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 SUSY model (x=0.5).

The experimental uncertainty in the same-sign, two-lepton MVA signal region SR dM20 for the CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 SUSY model (x=0.5).

The expected CLs in the same-sign, two-lepton MVA signal region SR dM20 for the CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 SUSY model (x=0.5).

The observed CLs in the same-sign, two-lepton MVA signal region SR dM20 for the CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 SUSY model (x=0.5).

The acceptance in the three-lepton signal region SR3l-1b for the CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 SUSY model (x=0.5).

The efficiency in the three-lepton signal region SR3l-1b for the CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 SUSY model (x=0.5).

The experimental uncertainty in the three-lepton signal region SR3l-1b for the CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 SUSY model (x=0.5).

The expected CLs in the three-lepton signal region SR3l-1b for the CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 SUSY model (x=0.5).

The observed CLs in the three-lepton signal region SR3l-1b for the CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 SUSY model (x=0.5).

The best expected signal region in the same-sign, two-lepton MVA analysis for the CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 SUSY model (x=0.95), where "1" indicates SR dM20, "2" indicates SR dM35, "3" indicates SR dM65, and "4" indicates SR dM100.

The 95% CL upper limit on the SUSY cross-section in the CHARGINO1+-NEUTRALINO2 SUSY model with STAU-mediated decays.

The 95% CL upper limit on the SUSY cross-section in the NEUTRALINO2 NEUTRALINO3 SUSY model.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario.

Upper 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario.

Lower 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL, when moving the nominal signal cross section up by the 1-sigma theoretical uncertainty, in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL, when moving the nominal signal cross section down by the 1-sigma theoretical uncertainty, in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Upper 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Lower 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO) = 150 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL, when moving the nominal signal cross section up by the 1-sigma theoretical uncertainty, in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO) = 150 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL, when moving the nominal signal cross section down by the 1-sigma theoretical uncertainty, in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO) = 150 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO) = 150 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Upper 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO) = 150 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Lower 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO) = 150 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL, when moving the nominal signal cross section up by the 1-sigma theoretical uncertainty, in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL, when moving the nominal signal cross section down by the 1-sigma theoretical uncertainty, in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Upper 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Lower 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL, when moving the nominal signal cross section up by the 1-sigma theoretical uncertainty, in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL, when moving the nominal signal cross section down by the 1-sigma theoretical uncertainty, in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Upper 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Lower 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Signal region (SR) providing the best expected sensitivity in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario. In the case of SRA, the number shown represents the contransverse mass, M(CT), threshold used.

Nominal observed excluded cross sections at 95% CL in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, once corrected by the luminosity and the efficiency times acceptance of the model itself.

Impact of reducing the branching ratios of SBOTTOM --> BOTTOM NEUTRALINO, assuming no sensitivity to the other decay possibilities, in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario. The numbers represent the maximum branching ratio excluded at 95% CL, taking the nominal cross section as reference.

Signal region (SR) providing the best expected sensitivity in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. In the case of SRA, the number shown represents the contransverse mass, M(CT), threshold used.

Signal region (SR) providing the best expected sensitivity in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. In the case of SRA, the number shown represents the contransverse mass, M(CT), threshold used.

Signal region (SR) providing the best expected sensitivity in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. In the case of SRA, the number shown represents the contransverse mass, M(CT), threshold used.

Nominal observed excluded cross sections at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario, once corrected by the luminosity and the efficiency times acceptance of the model itself.

Nominal observed excluded cross sections at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario, once corrected by the luminosity and the efficiency times acceptance of the model itself.

Nominal observed excluded cross sections at 95% CL in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario, once corrected by the luminosity and the efficiency times acceptance of the model itself.

Expected CLs values in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario.

Observed CLs values in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario.

Sbottom signal production cross sections in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane. These values are also used for the stop case since the differences in cross sections for these processes are negligible.

Relative theoretical uncertainties in percent on the sbottom signal production cross sections in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane coming from the usage of different PDF sets and renormalisation and factorisation scales. These values are also used for the stop case since the differences in cross sections for these processes are negligible.

Total number of generated MC events for the sbottom signal grid in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane.

Signal acceptance in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario. All the different "up" values have been added in quadrature. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario. All the different "down" values have been added in quadrature. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Expected CLs values in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Expected CLs values in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Expected CLs values in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed CLs values in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed CLs values in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed CLs values in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Total number of generated MC events for the stop signal grid in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV.

Signal acceptance in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. All the different "up" values have been added in quadrature. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. All the different "down" values have been added in quadrature. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

.

Signal acceptance in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. All the different "up" values have been added in quadrature. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. All the different "down" values have been added in quadrature. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total number of generated MC events for the stop signal grid in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV.

Signal acceptance in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. All the different "up" values have been added in quadrature. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. All the different "down" values have been added in quadrature. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

For events in the low-ETmiss validation region, the M(l tau) distribution in VR1taua.

For events in the low-ETmiss validation region, the MT2max distribution in VR2taua.

For events in the high-ETmiss + b-tagged jet validation region, the ETmiss distribution in VR0taunoZb.

For events in the high-ETmiss + b-tagged jet validation region, the ETmiss distribution in VR0tauZb.

For events in the high-ETmiss + b-tagged jet validation region, the ETmiss distribution in VR1taub.

For events in the high-ETmiss + b-tagged jet validation region, the ETmiss distribution in VR2taub.

Expected distributions of SM background events and observed data distributions in the binned signal regions SR0taua.

The distribution of ETmiss in the summation of all SR0taua regions prior to the requirements on this variable.

The distribution of MT in the summation of all SR0taua regions prior to the requirements on this variable.

The distribution of M(SFOS) in the summation of all SR0taua regions prior to the requirements on this variable.

Expected distribution of SM background events and observed data distribution for the MIN(DELTA(PHI(ll))) variable in the SR0taub region, prior to the requirements on this variable.

Expected distribution of SM background events and observed data distribution for the ETmiss variable in the SR1tau region, prior to the requirements on this variable.

Expected distribution of SM background events and observed data distribution for the MT2max variable in the SR2taua region, prior to the requirements on this variable.

Expected distribution of SM background events and observed data distribution for the M(tau tau) variable in the SR2taub region, prior to the requirements on this variable.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino and neutralino production in the sleptonL-mediated simplified model.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino and neutralino production in the sleptonL-mediated simplified model.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino and neutralino production in the WZ-mediated simplified model.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino and neutralino production in the WZ-mediated simplified model.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino and neutralino production in the stauL-mediated simplified model.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino and neutralino production in the stauL-mediated simplified model.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino and neutralino production in the Wh-mediated simplified model.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino and neutralino production in the Wh-mediated simplified model.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the pMSSM model with sleptons and M1 = 100 GeV.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the pMSSM model with sleptons and M1 = 100 GeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the pMSSM model with sleptons and M1 = 140 GeV.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the pMSSM model with sleptons and M1 = 140 GeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the pMSSM model with sleptons and M1 = 250 GeV.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the pMSSM model with sleptons and M1 = 250 GeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the pMSSM model with staus.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the pMSSM model with staus.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the pMSSM model with no sleptons.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the pMSSM model with no sleptons.

Excluded model cross-sections at 95% confidence level for the slepL-mediated simplified model.

Excluded model cross-sections at 95% confidence level for WZ-mediated simplified model.

Excluded model cross-sections at 95% confidence level for stauL-mediated simplified model.

Excluded model cross-sections at 95% confidence level for Wh-mediated simplified model.

Number of generated signal events for slepL-mediated simplified model.

Number of generated signal events for WZ-mediated simplified model.

Number of generated signal events for stauL-mediated simplified model.

Number of generated signal events for Wh-mediated simplified model.

Cross-sections for slepL-mediated simplified model.

Cross-sections for WZ-mediated simplified model.

Cross-sections for stauL-mediated simplified model.

Cross-sections for Wh-mediated simplified model.

Acceptance for slepL-mediated simplified model using SR0taua bin 20.

Acceptance for WZ-mediated simplified model using SR0taua bin 16.

Acceptance for stauL-mediated simplified model using SR2taua.

Acceptance for Wh-mediated simplified model using SR2taub.

Efficiency for slepL-mediated simplified model using SR0taua bin 20.

Efficiency for WZ-mediated simplified model using SR0taua bin 16.

Efficiency for stauL-mediated simplified model using SR2taua.

Efficiency for Wh-mediated simplified model using SR2taub.

The total experimental uncertainty, not including Monte Carlo statistics, for the slepL-mediated simplified model using SR0taua bin 20.

The total experimental uncertainty, not including Monte Carlo statistics, for the WZ-mediated simplified model using SR0taua bin 16.

The total experimental uncertainty, not including Monte Carlo statistics, for the stauL-mediated simplified model using SR2taua.

The total experimental uncertainty, not including Monte Carlo statistics, for the Wh-mediated simplified model using SR2taub.

The expected CL for slepL-mediated simplified model using SR0taua bin 20, using pseudo-experiments.

The expected CL for WZ-mediated simplified model using SR0taua bin 16, using pseudo-experiments.

The expected CL for stauL-mediated simplified model using SR2taua, using pseudo-experiments.

The expected CL for Wh-mediated simplified model using SR2taub, using pseudo-experiments.

The observed CL for slepL-mediated simplified model using SR0taua bin 20, using pseudo-experiments.

The observed CL for WZ-mediated simplified model using SR0taua bin 16, using pseudo-experiments.

The observed CL for stauL-mediated simplified model using SR2taua, using pseudo-experiments.

The observed CL for Wh-mediated simplified model using SR2taub, using pseudo-experiments.