Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson decay to $Za$ times the branching ratio $a $->$ \gamma \gamma$ as a function of the $a$ particle mass in the merged ($m_a \le 2$ GeV) and the resolved ($m_a > 2$ GeV) categories. The figure uses $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV corresponding to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

ATLAS observed 95% CL exclusion contours limits in terms of the ALP mass and its effective coupling to photons, $|C_{\gamma\gamma}|/\Lambda$, for different values of the Higgs coupling to $Za$, $|C_{Zh}|/\Lambda$. The figure uses $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV corresponding to 139 fb$^{-1}$. The value 100 in the tables is presentational, denoting the upper edge of the plot.

Distribution of $m_{\mathrm{JJ}}$ in the SR (black points) compared to the background-only expectation, where the shape is derived from the CR and the normalisation is fitted in the SR.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of dark quarks through a $Z^\prime$ as a function of the $Z^\prime$ mass for model A (see the text for details). The darker and lighter shaded bands around the expected limits represent the $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty range, respectively.

The predicted theory cross-section times branching ratio for the production of dark quarks through a $Z^\prime$ as a function of the $Z^\prime$ mass for model A (see the text for details). In the theory model, a universal coupling of the $Z^\prime$ to each SM quark $g_q$ is assumed and the dark quarks are all represented by one species with an effective coupling $g_{q_d}$ to the $Z^\prime$. For model A, the predicted cross-section is shown for $g_q=0.05$ and $g_{q_d} = 0.2$.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of dark quarks through a $Z^\prime$ as a function of the $Z^\prime$ mass for model B (see the text for details). The darker and lighter shaded bands around the expected limits represent the $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty range, respectively.

The predicted theory cross-section times branching ratio for the production of dark quarks through a $Z^\prime$ as a function of the $Z^\prime$ mass for model B (see the text for details). In the theory model, a universal coupling of the $Z^\prime$ to each SM quark $g_q$ is assumed and the dark quarks are all represented by one species with an effective coupling $g_{q_d}$ to the $Z^\prime$. For model B, the predicted cross-section is shown for $g_q=0.15$ and $g_{q_d} = 0.5$.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of dark quarks through a $Z^\prime$ as a function of the $Z^\prime$ mass for model C (see the text for details). The darker and lighter shaded bands around the expected limits represent the $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty range, respectively.

The predicted theory cross-section times branching ratio for the production of dark quarks through a $Z^\prime$ as a function of the $Z^\prime$ mass for model C (see the text for details). In the theory model, a universal coupling of the $Z^\prime$ to each SM quark $g_q$ is assumed and the dark quarks are all represented by one species with an effective coupling $g_{q_d}$ to the $Z^\prime$. For model C, the predicted cross-section is shown for $g_q=0.15$ and $g_{q_d}= 0.5$.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of dark quarks through a $Z^\prime$ as a function of the $Z^\prime$ mass for model D (see the text for details). The darker and lighter shaded bands around the expected limits represent the $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty range, respectively.

The predicted theory cross-section times branching ratio for the production of dark quarks through a $Z^\prime$ as a function of the $Z^\prime$ mass for model D (see the text for details). In the theory model, a universal coupling of the $Z^\prime$ to each SM quark $g_q$ is assumed and the dark quarks are all represented by one species with an effective coupling $g_{q_d}$ to the $Z^\prime$. For model D, the predicted cross-section is shown for $g_q=0.05$ and $g_{q_d} = 0.2$.

Relative efficiency (in %) of each stage of the analysis selection with respect to the previous one for models A through D and $m_{Z^\prime}=2.5$ TeV. Approximately 90000 events were generated per signal mass hypothesis.

Parametrization of the $A_{X}$ factor, defined as the fraction of diphoton resonances satisfying the fiducial acceptance at the particle level, as function of $m_{X}$ obtained from the narrow width simulated signal samples produced in gluon fusion.

The correction factor, $C_{X}$, defined as the ratio between the number of reconstructed signal events passing the analysis cuts and the number of signal events at the particle level generated within the fiducial volume, and acceptance correction factor, $A_{X}$, defined as the fraction of diphoton resonances satisfying the fiducial acceptance at the particle level. Both are computed for NWA spin-0 models as a function of $m_{X}$.

Effect of event selections on a scalar MC signal sample generated for $m_{X}$ = 15 GeV and on the data. For the MC sample, the efficiencies are shown after applying event weights and a truth level filter that requires two photons with $p^{\gamma\gamma}_{T}>40$ GeV; for the data, the absolute yields are shown. The initial yields for data include a trigger preselection that is the OR of a list of single photon and diphoton triggers. The "2 $loose$ photons" step includes the kinematic acceptance cuts.

Parameterization of the Double Sided Crystal Ball function parameters describing the scalar mass resolution model as a function of $m_{X}$ [GeV].

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.

Observed CLs contour with plus 1-sigma signal cross-section uncertainty in the ( M(CHARGINO), TAU(CHARGINO) ) space for tan(beta) = 5 and mu > 0.

Expected CLs contour in the ( M(CHARGINO), TAU(CHARGINO) ) space for tan(beta) = 5 and mu > 0.

Expected CLs contour with minus 1-sigma experimental uncertainty in the ( M(CHARGINO), TAU(CHARGINO) ) space for tan(beta) = 5 and mu > 0.

Expected CLs contour with plus 1-sigma experimental uncertainty in the ( M(CHARGINO), TAU(CHARGINO) ) space for tan(beta) = 5 and mu > 0.

Observed CLs contour in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) ) space of the AMSB model for tan(beta) = 5 and mu > 0.

Observed CLs contour with minus 1-sigma signal cross-section uncertainty in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) ) space of the AMSB model for tan(beta) = 5 and mu > 0.

Observed CLs contour with plus 1-sigma signal cross-section uncertainty in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) ) space of the AMSB model for tan(beta) = 5 and mu > 0.

Expected CLs contour in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) ) space of the AMSB model for tan(beta) = 5 and mu > 0.

Expected CLs contour with minus 1-sigma experimental uncertainty in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) ) space of the AMSB model for tan(beta) = 5 and mu > 0.

Expected CLs contour with plus 1-sigma experimental uncertainty in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) ) space of the AMSB model for tan(beta) = 5 and mu > 0.

Observed limits on the effective theory mass scale M* as a function of the dark matter mass M(chi) at 90% confidence-level from combined mono-W-boson and mono-Z-boson signals for various operators.

Limits on chi-nucleon cross sections as a function of M(chi) at 90% confidence-level.

Limit on the Higgs boson cross section for decay to invisible particles divided by the cross section for decays to Standard Model particles as a function of M(Higgs) at 95% confidence-level.

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.

Cross section x BR limit for the UED model.

95% CL observed and expected upper limits on M_* for spin-independent (D5) WIMP models. The impact of the +-1sigma theoretical uncertainty on the observed limits and the expected +-1sigma range of limits in the absence of a signal are also given.

95% CL observed and expected upper limits on M_* for spin-dependent (D8) WIMP models. The impact of the +-1sigma theoretical uncertainty on the observed limits and the expected +-1sigma range of limits in the absence of a signal are also given.

95% CL observed and expected upper limits on M_* for spin-dependent (D9) WIMP models. The impact of the +-1sigma theoretical uncertainty on the observed limits and the expected +-1sigma range of limits in the absence of a signal are also given.

95% CL observed and expected limits on the nucleon-WIMP scattering cross-section for spin-independent (D1) WIMP models. The impact of the +-1sigma theoretical uncertainty on the observed limits and the expected +-1sigma range of limits in the absence of a signal are also given.

95% CL observed and expected limits on the nucleon-WIMP scattering cross-section for spin-independent (D5) WIMP models. The impact of the +-1sigma theoretical uncertainty on the observed limits and the expected +-1sigma range of limits in the absence of a signal are also given.

95% CL observed and expected limits on the nucleon-WIMP scattering cross-section for spin-dependent (D8) WIMP models. The impact of the +-1sigma theoretical uncertainty on the observed limits and the expected +-1sigma range of limits in the absence of a signal are also given.

95% CL observed and expected limits on the nucleon-WIMP scattering cross-section for spin-dependent (D9) WIMP models. The impact of the +-1sigma theoretical uncertainty on the observed limits and the expected +-1sigma range of limits in the absence of a signal are also given.