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

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

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

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

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

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

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

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

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

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

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the tu$\gamma$ signal channel, the total number of observed selected events in the data (N$_{obs}$), the SM expectations (N$_{SM}$), the efficiencies ($\epsilon$), and the upper limits on the cross sections $\sigma_{fid}$ at the 95% CL in the fiducial region, without and with a requirement on the presence of a single accompanying b jet.

For the tc$\gamma$ signal channel, the total number of observed selected events in the data (N$_{obs}$), the SM expectations (N$_{SM}$), the efficiencies ($\epsilon$), and the upper limits on the cross sections $\sigma_{fid}$ at the 95% CL in the fiducial region, without and with a requirement on the presence of a single accompanying b jet.

Expected and observed measurements of the cross section and signal strength with 68% CL ranges and significances for t$\mathrm{\bar{t}}$W, in SS dilepton and 3$\ell$ channels.

Expected and observed measurements of the cross section and signal strength with 68% CL ranges and significances for t$\mathrm{\bar{t}}$Z, in OS dilepton, 3$\ell$, and 4$\ell$ channels.

Constraints from this t$\mathrm{\bar{t}}$Z and t$\mathrm{\bar{t}}$W measurement on selected dimension-six operators.

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.

Distribution of $m_{{\rm T}2}(\ell, \tau_{\mathrm{had}})$ for events passing all the lepton-hadron HM signal region requirements, except that on the variable itself. The SM background process have been normalised using a fit to the data observed in CRs.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the (scalar top, scalar tau) mass plane from the combination of all selections.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the (scalar top, scalar tau) mass plane from the combination of all selections.

The region / analysis with the best expected upper limit on the signal cross-section (95% CL) as a function of the stop and stau masses. 1: SRLM, 2: SRHH, 3: two-lepton channel analysis, 5: SRHM.

The 95% CL excluded cross section times branching ratio, using the best expected SR / analysis for each mass point.

The cut flow on the raw generated events for the signal point (scalar top mass, scalar tau mass) = (337,148) GeV for the hadron-hadron SR. The production cross section for this signal point is $1.00 \pm 0.14$ pb. Quality Cuts indicate a set of cuts applied to ensure good quality events in data. A full description of the cuts used is given in the text. The original input file has a filter applied to it that ensures that all the events have $E_T^{miss}>60$ GeV or one electron or muon with $p_\mathrm{T} > 20$ GeV at truth level. After the filter is applied (efficiency = 0.883) there are 100000 events remaining.

The cut flow on the raw generated events for the signal point (scalar top mass, scalar tau mass) = (195,87) GeV for the lepton-hadron LM SR. The production cross section for this signal point is $21 \pm 3$ pb. Quality Cuts indicate a set of cuts applied to ensure good quality events in data. A full description of the cuts used is given in the text. The original input file has a filter applied to it that ensures that all the events have $E_T^{miss}<60$ GeV and one electron or muon with $p_\mathrm{T} > 20$ GeV at truth level. After the filter is applied (efficiency = 0.117) there are 50000 events remaining before applying the event weights.

The cut flow on the raw generated events for the signal point (scalar top mass, scalar tau mass) = (391,337) GeV for the lepton-hadron HM SR. The production cross section for this signal point is $0.41 \pm 0.06$ pb. Quality Cuts indicate a set of cuts applied to ensure good quality events in data. A full description of the cuts used is given in the text. The original input file has a filter applied to it that ensures that all the events have either $E_T^{miss}>150$ GeV or at least one electron or muon with $p_\mathrm{T} > 20$ GeV at truth level. After the filter is applied (efficiency = 0.925) there are 50000 events remaining before applying the event weights.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detector response matrix (PROB) for the acoplanarity variable (ACO) for mu+ mu- channel (empty bins are not reported).

Acoplanarity (ACO) distributions unfolded for detector resolution, and lepton pair trigger, reconstruction and identification efficiencies for e+ e- channel (empty bins are not reported).

Acoplanarity (ACO) distributions unfolded for detector resolution, and lepton pair trigger, reconstruction and identification efficiencies for mu+ mu- channel (empty bins are not reported).

The lepton pair exclusive selection efficiency in the fiducial region for signal MC events as a function of M and Y for e+ e- channel.

The lepton pair exclusive selection efficiency in the fiducial region for signal MC events as a function of M and Y for mu+ mu- channel.

The lepton pair exclusive selection efficiency in the fiducial region for single-dissociative MC events as a function of M and Y for e+ e- channel.

The lepton pair exclusive selection efficiency in the fiducial region for single-dissociative MC events as a function of M and Y for mu+ mu- channel.