A summary of benchmark simplified models, the most sensitive $n_{\mathrm{jet}}$ categories, and representative values for the corresponding experimental acceptance times efficiency ($\mathcal{A}\varepsilon$), the dominant systematic uncertainties, the theoretical production cross section ($\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}$), and the expected and observed upper limits on the production cross section, expressed in terms of the signal strength parameter ($\mu$).

Summary of the mass limits obtained for the fourteen classes of simplified models. The limits indicate the strongest observed and expected (in parentheses) mass exclusions in $\tilde{g}$, $\tilde{q}$, $\tilde{b}$, $\tilde{t}$, and $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The quoted values have uncertainties of $\pm 25$ and $\pm 10$ GeV for models involving the pair production of, respectively, gluinos and squarks.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1qqqq model. This line is the expected exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1qqqq model. This line is the observed exclusion.

Covariance matrix for the SM background estimates obtained using the simplified binning scheme, determined from a simultaneous fit to data in the control regions only (CR-only fit). The uncertainties in the background estimates are correlated in such a way that the covariance is typically positive. Small positive values, as well as the few negative values, are not shown.

Correlation matrix for the SM background estimates obtained using the simplified binning scheme, determined from a simultaneous fit to data in the control regions only (CR-only fit).

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{q} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2qq model. This line is the expected exclusion.

Observed data counts and "post-fit" background expectations based on the result of a combined fit to the signal region and multiple control regions under the SM-only hypothesis for the "monojet" event category. The rows labelled SM "pre-fit' show the background expectations when excluding the signal region from the fit. The uncertainties include statistical as well as systematic contributions.

Observed data counts and "post-fit" background expectations based on the result of a combined fit to the signal region and multiple control regions under the SM-only hypothesis for the "asymmetric" event categories. The rows labelled SM "pre-fit" show the background expectations when excluding the signal region from the fit. The uncertainties include statistical as well as systematic contributions.

Observed data counts and "post-fit" background expectations based on the result of a combined fit to the signal region and multiple control regions under the SM-only hypothesis for the "symmetric" event categories. The rows labelled SM "pre-fit" show the background expectations when excluding the signal region from the fit. The uncertainties include statistical as well as systematic contributions.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{q} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2qq model. This line is the observed exclusion.

Summary of a simplified binning scheme comprising $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ shapes for eight representative event topologies, defined in terms of requirements on $n_{\mathrm{jet}}$ both symmetric and asymmetric categories) and $n_{\mathrm{b}}$. For each topology, event yields are integrated over the full $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ range, $H_{\mathrm{T}} > 200$ GeV, and are categorised according to eight bins in $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ -- $130 < H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} < 200$ GeV, six bins 100 GeV wide in the region $200 < H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} < 800$ GeV, and an open final bin, $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 800$ GeV. This categorisation scheme leads to 64 bins that are exclusive, contiguous, and provide complete coverage of the signal region. The corresponding SM background estimates for these 64 bins are obtained using the nominal likelihood model. The $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ template for each topology is determined from simulation and the normalisation for each template is given by an aggregate of estimates from several ($n_{\mathrm{jet}}$, $n_{\mathrm{b}}$, $H_{\mathrm{T}}$) bins, defined according to the nominal binning scheme.

Observed data yields and "CR-only fit" SM background expectations using the simplified binning scheme, as a function of topology and $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. The SM backgrounds are determined from a simultaneous fit to data in the control regions. The data yields in the signal region are masked and excluded from the fit. The uncertainties include statistical as well as systematic contributions.

Expected ($\mu_{\mathrm{exp}}$) and observed ($\mu_{\mathrm{obs}}$) upper limits on the production cross section, expressed in terms of the signal strength parameter, obtained using both the nominal and simplified binning schema. Comparable values are obtained from the two schema for these benchmark SUSY models because the signal events typically populate bins at high values of $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ and so are at or near the limit of the search sensitivity. Larger differences in $\mu$ can be observed for models that populate the core of these distributions.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1bbbb model. This line is the expected exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1bbbb model. This line is the observed exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1tttt model. This line is the expected exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1tttt model. This line is the observed exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1ttbb model. This line is the expected exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1qqqq model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1ttbb model. This line is the observed exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1qqqq model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1qqqq model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T5tttt_DM175 model. This line is the expected exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1qqqq model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{q} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2qq model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{q} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2qq model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T5tttt_DM175 model. This line is the observed exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{q} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2qq model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{q} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2qq model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1bbbb model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T5ttcc model. This line is the expected exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1bbbb model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1bbbb model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1bbbb model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T5ttcc model. This line is the observed exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1tttt model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1tttt model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1tttt model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ b } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2bb model. This line is the expected exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1tttt model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1ttbb model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1ttbb model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ b } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2bb model. This line is the observed exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1ttbb model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T1ttbb model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T5tttt_DM175 model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tb model. This line is the expected exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T5tttt_DM175 model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T5tttt_DM175 model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T5tttt_DM175 model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tb model. This line is the observed exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T5ttcc model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T5ttcc model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T5ttcc model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tt model. This line is the expected exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T5ttcc model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ b } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2bb model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ b } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2bb model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ b } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2bb model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tt model. This line is the observed exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ b } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2bb model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tb model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2cc model. This line is the expected exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tb model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tb model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tb model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2cc model. This line is the observed exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tt model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tt model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tt model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tt_degen model. This line is the expected exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tt model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2cc model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2cc model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tt_degen model. This line is the observed exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2cc model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2cc model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tt_degen model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2_mixed model. This line is the expected exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tt_degen model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tt_degen model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2tt_degen model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2_mixed model. This line is the observed exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2_mixed model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2_mixed model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2_mixed model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2bW model. This line is the expected exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2_mixed model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2bW model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2bW model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ expected exclusion due to experimental uncertainties.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2bW model. This line is the observed exclusion.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2bW model. This line is the $+1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Upper limit on the cross section in the $(m_{ \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } } }, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 })$ plane for the T2bW model. This line is the $-1\sigma $ observed exclusion due to theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Post-fit distribution of the $M(ll)$ variable for the ultrahigh-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $M(ll)$ variable for the low-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '3l soft' signal region of the the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $M(ll)$ variable for the medium-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '3l soft' signal region of the the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(ll)$ variable for low-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(ll)$ variable for medium-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(ll)$ variable for high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(ll)$ variable for ultrahigh-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

2SS $\ell/{\geq}\,3\ell$ search: observed and expected yields across the SRs in category A, events with three light leptons of which at least two form an OSSF pair, after the requirement that the leading-lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ be greater than 30 GeV is applied.

2SS $\ell/{\geq}\,3\ell$ search: observed and expected yields across the SRs of the '${\geq}\ 3\ell$' search in category B, events with three light leptons and no OSSF pair, after the requirement that the leading-lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ be greater than 30 GeV is applied.

Wino-bino model: cross section limits in the model parameter space, for wino-like chargino-neutralino production in the WZ topology for the full parameter space.

Wino-bino model: cross section limits in the model parameter space, for wino-like chargino-neutralino production in the WZ topology for the compressed space.

Wino-bino model: cross section limits in the model parameter space, for wino-like chargino-neutralino production in the WH topology for the full parameter space.

Wino-bino model: cross section limits in the model parameter space, for wino-like chargino-neutralino production with mixed topology with equal branching fraction to WZ and WH.

Wino-bino model: exclusion contours from the individual and combined analyses targeting WZ topology for the full parameter space. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

Wino-bino model: exclusion contours from the individual and combined analyses targeting the corresponding compressed region. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

Wino-bino model: exclusion contours from the individual and combined analyses targeting the WH topology for the full parameter space. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

Wino-bino model: exclusion contours from the individual and combined analyses targeting combined contours for these two topologies. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

GMSB model: expected and observed cross section limits for the neutralino-neutralino production for the ZZ topology.

GMSB model: expected and observed cross section limits for the neutralino-neutralino production for the HH topology.

GMSB model: expected and observed cross section limits for the neutralino-neutralino production for the mixed topology with equal branching fraction to H and Z.

GMSB model: cross section limits for neutralino-neutralino production as a function of the NSLP mass and the branching fraction to the H boson for the combination of the searches.

GMSB model: exclusion limit for neutralino-neutralino production as a function of the NSLP mass and the branching fraction to the H boson for the combination of the searches along with the input searches. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

Cross section upper limit(s) in the mass plane of NLSP and LSP masses for the higgsino-bino model.

Mass plane cross section upper limit for direct slepton pair production, with observed and expected exclusion limits in the full mass plane from the combination.

Mass plane cross section upper limit for direct slepton pair production, with observed and expected exclusion limits in the compressed region from '2/3l' soft search.

Expected limit contour for GGM scenario

Observed limit contour for GGM scenario

Expected limit contour for GGM scenario

Observed limit contour for GGM scenario

Expected limit contour for Neutralino BF scenario

Observed limit contour for Neutralino BF scenario

Expected limit contour for Chargino BF scenario

Observed limit contour for Chargino BF scenario

Expected limit contour for T5Wg

Observed limit contour for T5Wg

Expected limit contour for Gluino BF scenario

Observed limit contour for Gluino BF scenario

Covariance matrix for all bins (additional material)

Correlation matrix for all bins (additional material)

Figure 8. Gluino pair production cross section.

Table 1. Post-fit yields for the background-only fit, observed data, and expected yields for mgluino = 1600 GeV in each search bin.

Figure 2. -1 sigma excluded gluino and neutralino masses at 95% CL for the T1tttt.

Figure 2. Expected exclusion for the T1tttt model.

Figure 2. +1 sigma expected exclusion for the T1tttt model.

Figure 2. -1 sigma expected exclusion for the T1tttt model.

Figure 2. Excluded gluino and neutralino masses at 95% CL for the T5tttt.

Figure 2. Expected exclusion for the T5tttt model.

Table 1. Observed event yields and mean background yields from the predictive fit in the 18 bins of the signal region R4.

Table 2. Observed event yields and mean background yields from the predictive fit in four aggregate search bins.

SM background observation/prediction in the WH signal region

SM background prediction vs. observation in the W signal region

SM background observation/prediction in the W signal region

SM background prediction vs. observation in the H signal region

SM background observation/prediction in the H signal region

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the production cross sections for $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^\mp_1$ assuming that each $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ decays to a W boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the production cross sections for $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ assuming that each $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ decays to a W boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ decays to a Z boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the production cross sections for $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ assuming that each $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ decays to a W boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ decays to a H boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the production cross sections for mass-degenerate higgsino-like$\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^\mp_1$, $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$, $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_3$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_3$ as functions of the NLSP and LSP masses.

Efficiency of bb-tagger for H(bb), Z(bb) and Z(cc) decays.

Efficiency of W- and V-tagger for W(qq) and Z(qq) decays.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWW in the b-Veto region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWZ in the b-Veto region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWH in the b-Veto region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiHZ in the b-Veto region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWW in the WHSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWW in the WSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWW in the HSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWZ in the WHSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWZ in the WSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWZ in the HSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWH in the WHSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWH in the WSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWH in the HSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with uncertainties for TChiHZ in the WHSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with uncertainties for TChiHZ in the WSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiHZ in the HSR region.

Covariance matrix for the signal regions, derived from a fit to the control regions only under the background-only hypothesis.

Correlation matrix for the signal regions, derived from a fit to the control regions only under the background-only hypothesis.

Theory cross sections vs m($\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$) for SMS model TChiHH-G, $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1, \widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ NLSPs only.

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the production cross sections of the TChiHH signal model as a function of the $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses. Relative to Fig. 13, the binning of the table is adjusted to align with the model points that were sampled. In addition, a small correction has been applied that affects the cross section upper limits for points with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = 1$ GeV. For that row of points in the figure, the small region of model phase space reached by both the resolved and boosted selections was inadvertently double counted in computing the signal contribution to the predicted yield.

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Cross section, 95% CL upper limit plus theory vs m($\widetilde{g}$) for SMS model T5HH.

Pre-fit background covariance matrix $\sigma_{xy}$ for the 22 analysis bins, ordered as in Fig. 10.

Pre-fit background correlation matrix $\rho_{xy}$ for the 22 analysis bins, ordered as in Fig. 10.

Significance vs $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2), m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1))$ for SMS model TChiHH.

Significance vs $m(\widetilde{g})$ for SMS model T5HH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $275, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $300, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $300, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $50) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $450, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $750, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $750, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $200) for SMS model TChiHH.

Efficiency vs $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1)$ for SMS model TChiHH-G. The denominator includes all 22 signal regions, and assumes $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}$-->$\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})=100\%$.

Efficiency vs $m(\widetilde{g})$ for SMS model T5HH. The denominator includes all 22 signal regions, and no constraint on $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}$-->$\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})$.

Efficiency vs $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2), m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1))$ for SMS model TChiHH. The denominator includes all 22 signal regions, and assumes $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}$-->$\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})=100\%$.

Signal and control region populations for the resolved signature.

Signal and control region populations for the boosted signature.

Cut flow table for the resolved topology showing expected event yields at 137 fb$^{-1}$ for selected signal models as successive selections are applied.

Cut flow table for the boosted topology showing expected event yields at 137 fb$^{-1}$ for selected signal model points as successive selections are applied. Here the hadronic baseline is defined by $N_{\mathrm{jet}}\geq$2, \ptmiss$>$300 GeV, $\Delta\phi$ cuts, and the isolated lepton and track vetoes.

Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).

Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).

Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).

Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).

Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker.

TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker. Both are evaluated using an independent sample of testing events.

TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker.

TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker. Both are evaluated using an independent sample of testing events.

The TD jet tagger score distributions for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The last bin contains jets with tagger scores greater than 0.996, the threshold used to tag signal jets. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The efficiency of the TD jet tagger working point used in the analysis is shown as a function of the lab frame transverse decay length for simulated signals with $\chi$ mass of 400 GeV. The uncertainties shown account for lifetime dependence and statistical uncertainty.

The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR is shown along with the systematic uncertainty, quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.

The TD jet tagger score distributions for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. The last bin contains jets with tagger scores greater than 0.996, the threshold used to tag signal jets. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR is shown along with the systematic uncertainty, quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.

The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR (black round markers) is shown along with the systematic uncertainty (gray band), quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The measurements in the alternative MRs are displayed as well ($Z$+jets MR as green round markers, $t\bar{t}$ MR as red squared markers, QCD MR as blue triangular markers) along with their respective statistical uncertainty. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.

Distribution of the number of TD tagged jets for the $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeVsimulated signal samples with $c\tau_{\chi} = 0.5$ m (solid red line) and $c\tau_{\chi} = 3.0$ m (dotted green line), estimated background (blue square markers), and data (black round markers). The blue shaded region indicates the systematic uncertainty in the background prediction. No background prediction is shown for the bin with zero TD tagged jets as it is the main control region used to predict the background for the other two bins. There are zero observed events in the bin with two or more TD tagged jets.

The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR (black round markers) is shown along with the systematic uncertainty (gray band), quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The measurements in the alternative MRs are displayed as well ($Z$+jets MR as green round markers, $t\bar{t}$ MR as red squared markers, QCD MR as blue triangular markers) along with their respective statistical uncertainty. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).

Distribution of the number of TD tagged jets for the $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeVsimulated signal samples with $c\tau_{\chi} = 0.5$ m (solid red line) and $c\tau_{\chi} = 3.0$ m (dotted green line), estimated background (blue square markers), and data (black round markers). The signal distributions are normalized to the expected cross section limit. The blue shaded region indicates the systematic uncertainty in the background prediction. No background prediction is shown for the bin with zero TD tagged jets as it is the main control region used to predict the background for the other two bins. There are zero observed events in the bin with two or more TD tagged jets.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The distribution of the jet charged hadron energy fraction, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The distribution of the jet neutral hadron energy fraction, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The distribution of the number of track constituents in the jet, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The $\eta$ distribution of TD-tagged jets in a background-enriched control region that comprises events with exactly one TD-tagged jet. Observed data (black round markers) and the corresponding prediction based on control samples in data (empty squared markers), measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR, are compared. The prediction uncertainty (gray band) includes the systematic uncertainty quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The predictions for the shape and the normalization of the $\eta$ distribution are consistent with the data.

Jet time distribution in a sample of b-tagged jets from dilepton $t \bar{t}$ events in 2017 data-taking period (black round markers) and simulation (filled histogram). A Gaussian smearing procedure is applied to the jet time in the $t \bar{t}$ sample (green line) to correct for effects that are difficult to simulate (timing drift caused by crystals transparency loss due to detector aging, electronics jitter).

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 1$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.75$, $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 0.25$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.25$, $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 0.75$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 1$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 127 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 127 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 150 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 150 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 175 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 175 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 200 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 200 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 250 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 250 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 300 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 300 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 400 GeV.

Exclusion regions at 95% CL in the $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ versus $m_{\tilde{g}}$ plane for the T1tttt (upper left) and T5ttbbWW (upper right) models, with off-shell third-generation squarks, and the T5tttt (lower left) and T5ttcc (lower right) models, with on-shell third-generation squarks. For the T5ttbbWW model, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm} = m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} + 5 GeV$, for the T5tttt model, $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} = m_t$, and for the T5ttcc model, $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} = 20 GeV$ and the decay proceeds through $\tilde{t} \to c \tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The right-hand side color scale indicates the excluded cross section values for a given point in the SUSY particle mass plane. The solid black curves represent the observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections (thick line), or their variations of $\pm 1$ standard deviations (s.d.) (thin lines). The dashed red curves show the expected limits with the corresponding $\pm 1$ s.d. and $\pm 2$ s.d. uncertainties. Excluded regions are to the left and below the limit curves.

Exclusion regions at 95% CL in the plane of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ versus $m_{\tilde{g}}$ for the T5qqqqWZ model with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}=0.5(m_{\tilde{g}} + m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0})$~(left) and with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm} = m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} + 20 GeV$~(right). The notations are as in Fig. 7.

Exclusion regions at 95% CL in the plane of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ versus $m_{\tilde{g}}$ for the T5qqqqWZ model with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}=0.5(m_{\tilde{g}} + m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0})$~(left) and with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm} = m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} + 20 GeV$~(right). The notations are as in Fig. 7.

Exclusion regions at 95% CL in the plane of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ versus $m_{\tilde{g}}$ for the T5qqqqWW model with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}=0.5(m_{\tilde{g}} + m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0})$~(left) and with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm} = m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} + 20 GeV$~(right). The notations are as in Fig. 7.

Exclusion regions at 95% CL in the plane of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ versus $m_{\tilde{g}}$ for the T5qqqqWW model with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}=0.5(m_{\tilde{g}} + m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0})$~(left) and with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm} = m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} + 20 GeV$~(right). The notations are as in Fig. 7.

Exclusion regions at 95% CL in the plane of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$ versus $m_{\tilde{b}_1}$ for the T6ttWW model with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}=50 GeV$. The notations are as in Fig. 7.

Exclusion regions at 95% CL in the plane of $m(\tilde{t}_1)$ versus $m(\tilde{t}_2)$ for the T6ttHZ model with $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=175 GeV$. The three exclusions represent $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{t}_2\to\tilde{t}_1 Z)$ of 0, 50, and 100%, respectively. The notations are as in Fig. 7.

Exclusion regions at 95% CL in the plane of $m(\tilde{t}_1)$ versus $m(\tilde{t}_2)$ for the T6ttHZ model with $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=175 GeV$. The three exclusions represent $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{t}_2\to\tilde{t}_1 Z)$ of 0, 50, and 100%, respectively. The notations are as in Fig. 7.

Exclusion regions at 95% CL in the plane of $m(\tilde{t}_1)$ versus $m(\tilde{t}_2)$ for the T6ttHZ model with $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=175 GeV$. The three exclusions represent $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{t}_2\to\tilde{t}_1 Z)$ of 0, 50, and 100%, respectively. The notations are as in Fig. 7.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for RPV gluino pair production with each gluino decaying into four quarks and one lepton (T1qqqqL, left), and each gluino decaying into a top, bottom, and strange quarks (T1tbs, right).

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for RPV gluino pair production with each gluino decaying into four quarks and one lepton (T1qqqqL, left), and each gluino decaying into a top, bottom, and strange quarks (T1tbs, right).

Upper limits at 95% CL on the product of cross section, detector acceptance, and selection efficiency, $\sigma \mathcal{A} \epsilon$, for the production of an SS lepton pair with at least two jets, as a function of the minimum $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ threshold, when $H_\mathrm{T}>300 GeV$ (left), or the minimum $H_\mathrm{T}$ threshold, when $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}<300 GeV$ (right).

Upper limits at 95% CL on the product of cross section, detector acceptance, and selection efficiency, $\sigma \mathcal{A} \epsilon$, for the production of an SS lepton pair with at least two jets, as a function of the minimum $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ threshold, when $H_\mathrm{T}>300 GeV$ (left), or the minimum $H_\mathrm{T}$ threshold, when $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}<300 GeV$ (right).