The double ratio R_double at 7000 GeV in different bins of charged particle multiplicity and kT.

The double ratio R_double at 7000 GeV in different bins of charged particle multiplicity.

Parameters of the fit to the double ratio R_double at 900 GeV.

Parameters of the fit to the double ratio R_double at 7000 GeV.

The ratio of the cross section for Z+ n jet production over the cross section for Z production in the muon channel.

The ratio of the cross section for W+ n jet production over the cross section for W+n-1jet production in the electron channel.

The ratio of the cross section for W+ n jet production over the cross section for W+n-1jet production in the muon channel.

The ratio of the cross section for Z+ n jet production over the cross section for Z+n-1jet production in the electron channel.

The ratio of the cross section for Z+ n jet production over the cross section for Z+n-1jet production in the muon channel.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 40 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 50 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 50 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 60 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 60 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 70 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 70 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 80 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 80 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 90 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 90 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 100 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 100 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 110 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 110 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 125 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 125 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 140 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 140 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 160 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 160 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 180 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 180 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 200 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 200 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 225 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 225 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 250 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 250 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 300 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 300 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 400 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 400 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 500 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 500 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 600 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 600 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 1000 GeV and 0 <|y|< 0.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 20 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 25 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 25 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 30 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 30 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 40 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 40 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 50 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 50 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 60 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 60 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 70 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 70 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 80 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 80 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 90 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 90 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 100 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 100 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 110 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 110 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 125 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 125 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 140 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 140 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 160 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 160 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 180 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 180 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 200 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 200 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 225 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 225 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 250 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 250 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 300 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 300 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 400 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 400 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 500 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 500 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 600 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 600 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 1000 GeV and 0.5 <|y|< 1.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 20 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 25 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 25 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 30 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 30 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 40 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 40 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 50 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 50 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 60 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 60 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 70 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 70 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 80 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 80 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 90 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 90 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 100 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 100 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 110 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 110 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 125 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 125 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 140 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 140 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 160 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 160 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 180 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 180 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 200 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 200 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 225 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 225 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 250 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 250 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 300 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 300 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 400 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 400 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 500 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 500 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 600 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 600 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 1000 GeV and 1.0 <|y|< 1.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 20 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 25 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 25 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 30 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 30 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 40 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 40 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 50 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 50 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 60 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 60 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 70 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 70 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 80 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 80 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 90 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 90 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 100 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 100 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 110 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 110 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 125 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 125 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 140 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 140 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 160 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 160 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 180 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 180 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 200 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 200 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 225 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 225 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 250 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 250 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 300 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 300 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 400 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 400 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 500 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 500 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 600 GeV and 1.5 <|y|< 2.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 20 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 25 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 25 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 30 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 30 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 40 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 40 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 50 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 50 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 60 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 60 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 70 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 70 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 80 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 80 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 90 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 90 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 100 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 100 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 110 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 110 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 125 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 125 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 140 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 140 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 160 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 160 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 180 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 180 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 200 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 200 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 225 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 225 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 250 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 250 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 300 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 300 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 400 GeV and 2.0 <|y|< 2.5. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 20 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 25 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 25 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 30 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 30 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 40 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 40 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 50 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 50 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 60 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 60 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 70 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 70 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 80 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 80 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 90 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 90 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 100 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 100 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 110 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 110 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 125 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 125 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 140 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 140 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 160 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 160 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 180 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 180 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 200 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 200 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 225 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 225 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 250 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 250 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 300 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The measured differential jet shape $\rho(r)$ for jets with 300 GeV $< p_{\mathrm{T}} <$ 400 GeV and 2.5 <|y|< 3.0. The CF in the table refers to unfolding correction factor from {\sc pythia6} Tune Z2. The systematic uncertainties from different sources, jet energy scale (JES), unfolding, and single particle response (SPR), are also presented.

The dependence of $\langle N_\mathrm{ch} \rangle$ on the transverse momentum of jets in two different rapidity regions, $|y| < 1$ and $1 < |y| < 2$.

The dependence of $\langle \delta R^2 \rangle$ on the transverse momentum of jets in two different rapidity regions, $|y| < 1$ and $ 1 < |y| < 2 $.

The dependence of $\langle\delta \eta^2\rangle/\langle\delta \phi^2\rangle$ on the transverse momentum for jets with $|y| < 1$.

The average multiplicity and average scalar sum of transverse momenta of charge particles per unit of pseudorapidity and per radian as a function of the leading track-jet transverse momenta. Statistical errors only. Typical systematic error of 1.8 PCT at a leading track-jet PT of 3.5 GeV.

The normalized multiplicity distribution (PROB) of charged particles. Statistical error only. Typical systematic error of 2.3 PCT at a multiplicity of 4.

The normalized distribution of the scalar sum of the transverse momenta of charged particles. Statistical errors only. Typical systematic error of 1.6 PCT at a SUM(PT) of 4.5 GeV.

The transverse momenta spectrum of charged particles. Statistical error only. Typical systematic error of 2.0 PCT at a PT of 1 GeV.

The inclusive charged particle invariant differential cross section, as a function of XT and scaled by sqrt(s)*4.9, at 7 TeV for |eta|<1.

The interpolated invariant charged particle differential cross section at 2.76 GeV for |eta|<1.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 640 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 720 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 800 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 880 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 960 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1040 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1120 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1200 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1280 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1360 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1440 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1520 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1600 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1680 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1760 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1840 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1920 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 2000 GeV and Neutralino mass 50 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 400 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 480 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 560 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 640 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 720 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 800 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 880 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 960 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1040 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1120 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1200 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1280 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1360 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1440 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1520 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1600 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1680 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1760 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1840 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1920 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 2000 GeV and Neutralino mass 150 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 400 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 480 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 560 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 640 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 720 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 800 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 880 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 960 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1040 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1120 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1200 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1280 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1360 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1440 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1520 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1600 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1680 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1760 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1840 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 1920 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

95 PCT CL upper limits to cross section and the GGM acceptance as a function of Gluino mass for Squark mass 2000 GeV and Neutralino mass 500 GeV.

Lower 95 PCT exclusion limits on the squark and gluino masses for a neutralino mass of 50 GeV.

Lower 95 PCT exclusion limits on the squark and gluino masses for a neutralino mass of 150 GeV.

Lower 95 PCT exclusion limits on the squark and gluino masses for a neutralino mass of 500 GeV.

The double differential cross section as a function of the di-jet mass for the range |y_max| = 1.5-2.0, where |y_max| = max(|y1,|y2|) of the two leading jets in the event.

The double differential cross section as a function of the di-jet mass for the range |y_max| = 2.0-2.5, where |y_max| = max(|y1,|y2|) of the two leading jets in the event.

The (unpolarised) acceptance corrected J/PSI cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for (PROMPT) and NON-PROMPT) production in the |rapidity| bin 1.6-2.1.

The (unpolarised) acceptance corrected J/PSI cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for (PROMPT) and NON-PROMPT) production in the |rapidity| bin 2.1-2.4.

The (unpolarised) acceptance corrected PSI(2S) cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for (PROMPT) and NON-PROMPT production in the |rapidity| bin 0.0-1.2.

The (unpolarised) acceptance corrected PSI(2S) cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for (PROMPT) and NON-PROMPT production in the |rapidity| bin 1.2-1.6.

The (unpolarised) acceptance corrected PSI(2S) cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for (PROMPT) and NON-PROMPT production in the |rapidity| bin 1.6-2.4.

The uncorrected visible J/PSI cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for PROMPT and NON-PROMPT production in the |rapidity| bin 0.0-0.9.

The uncorrected visible J/PSI cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for PROMPT and NON-PROMPT production in the |rapidity| bin 0.9-1.2.

The uncorrected visible J/PSI cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for PROMPT and NON-PROMPT production in the |rapidity| bin 1.2-1.6.

The uncorrected visible J/PSI cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for PROMPT and NON-PROMPT production in the |rapidity| bin 1.6-2.1.

The uncorrected visible J/PSI cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for PROMPT and NON-PROMPT production in the |rapidity| bin 2.1-2.4.

The uncorrected visible PSI(2S) cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for PROMPT and NON-PROMPT production in the |rapidity| bin 0.0-1.2.

The uncorrected visible PSI(2S) cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for PROMPT and NON-PROMPT production in the |rapidity| bin 1.2-1.6.

The uncorrected visible PSI(2S) cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for PROMPT and NON-PROMPT production in the |rapidity| bin 1.6-2.4.

The ratio between the PSI(2S) and J/PSI cross sections times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for PROMPT and NON-PROMPT production in the |rapidity| bin 0.0-1.2.

The ratio between the PSI(2S) and J/PSI cross sections times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for PROMPT and NON-PROMPT production in the |rapidity| bin 1.2-1.6.

The ratio between the PSI(2S) and J/PSI cross sections times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for PROMPT and NON-PROMPT production in the |rapidity| bin 1.6-2.4.

The ratio between the PSI(2S) and J/PSI cross sections times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for PROMPT and NON-PROMPT production in the integrated |rapidity| bin 0.0-2.4.

The non-prompt fraction (FB) of J/PSI times branching ratio to MU+ MU- from B-HADRON decays in the |rapidity| bin 0.0-0.9.

The non-prompt fraction (FB) of J/PSI times branching ratio to MU+ MU- from B-HADRON decays in the |rapidity| bin 0.9-1.2.

The non-prompt fraction (FB) of J/PSI times branching ratio to MU+ MU- from B-HADRON decays in the |rapidity| bin 1.2-1.6.

The non-prompt fraction (FB) of J/PSI times branching ratio to MU+ MU- from B-HADRON decays in the |rapidity| bin 1.6-2.1.

The non-prompt fraction (FB) of J/PSI times branching ratio to MU+ MU- from B-HADRON decays in the |rapidity| bin 2.1-2.4.

The non-prompt fraction (FB) of PSI(2S) times branching ratio to MU+ MU- from B-HADRON decays in the |rapidity| bin 0.0-1.2.

The non-prompt fraction (FB) of PSI(2S) times branching ratio to MU+ MU- from B-HADRON decays in the |rapidity| bin 1.2-1.6.

The non-prompt fraction (FB) of PSI(2S) times branching ratio to MU+ MU- from B-HADRON decays in the |rapidity| bin 1.6-2.4.

The difference between the J/PSI cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for non-prompt production calculated for four different polarization scenarios and the zero polarization values. The notation is (-1,CS), (+1,CS), (-1,HX), (+1,HX), where CS(HX) is the Collins-Soper (Helicity) frame and -1(+1) refer to full longitudinal (transverse) polarization.

The difference between the J/PSI cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for non-prompt production calculated for four different polarization scenarios and the zero polarization values. The notation is (-1,CS), (+1,CS), (-1,HX), (+1,HX), where CS(HX) is the Collins-Soper (Helicity) frame and -1(+1) refer to full longitudinal (transverse) polarization.

The difference between the J/PSI cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for non-prompt production calculated for four different polarization scenarios and the zero polarization values. The notation is (-1,CS), (+1,CS), (-1,HX), (+1,HX), where CS(HX) is the Collins-Soper (Helicity) frame and -1(+1) refer to full longitudinal (transverse) polarization.

The difference between the J/PSI cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for non-prompt production calculated for four different polarization scenarios and the zero polarization values. The notation is (-1,CS), (+1,CS), (-1,HX), (+1,HX), where CS(HX) is the Collins-Soper (Helicity) frame and -1(+1) refer to full longitudinal (transverse) polarization.

The difference between the J/PSI cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for non-prompt production calculated for four different polarization scenarios and the zero polarization values. The notation is (-1,CS), (+1,CS), (-1,HX), (+1,HX), where CS(HX) is the Collins-Soper (Helicity) frame and -1(+1) refer to full longitudinal (transverse) polarization.

The difference between the PSI(2S) cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for non-prompt production calculated for four different polarization scenarios and the zero polarization values. The notation is (-1,CS), (+1,CS), (-1,HX), (+1,HX), where CS(HX) is the Collins-Soper (Helicity) frame and -1(+1) refer to full longitudinal (transverse) polarization.

The difference between the PSI(2S) cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for non-prompt production calculated for four different polarization scenarios and the zero polarization values. The notation is (-1,CS), (+1,CS), (-1,HX), (+1,HX), where CS(HX) is the Collins-Soper (Helicity) frame and -1(+1) refer to full longitudinal (transverse) polarization.

The difference between the PSI(2S) cross section times branching ratio to MU+ MU- for non-prompt production calculated for four different polarization scenarios and the zero polarization values. The notation is (-1,CS), (+1,CS), (-1,HX), (+1,HX), where CS(HX) is the Collins-Soper (Helicity) frame and -1(+1) refer to full longitudinal (transverse) polarization.

Covariance matrix values between the rapidity bins for the electrons data sample.

Covariance matrix values between the rapidity bins for the combined data sample.

Covariance matrix values between the QT bins for the muons data sample.

Covariance matrix values between the QT bins for the electrons data sample.

Covariance matrix values between the QT bins for the combined data sample.

Measured cross sections for Z0 production.

Ratios of W to Z cross sections.

Ratios of W+ to W- cross sections.

Measured cross sections in the restricted fiducial and kinematic acceptance for W and Z production in the electron decay channel.

Measured cross sections in the restricted fiducial and kinematic acceptance for W production in the muon decay channel.

Measured cross sections in the restricted fiducial and kinematic acceptance for Z production in the muon decay channel.

Measured cross sections for Z0 production.

Ratios of W to Z cross sections.

Ratios of W+ to W- cross sections.

Measured cross sections in the restricted fiducial and kinematicacceptance for W and Z production in the electron decay channel.

Measured cross sections in the restricted fiducial and kinematicacceptance for W and Z production in the muon decay channel.

UPSI(3S) differential cross sections for |y| < 2.

UPSI(1S) differential cross sections for |y| < 1.

UPSI(2S) differential cross sections for |y| < 1.

UPSI(3S) differential cross sections for |y| < 1.

UPSI(1S) differential cross sections for 1 < |y| < 2.

UPSI(2S) differential cross sections for 1 < |y| < 2.

UPSI(3S) differential cross sections for 1 < |y| < 2.

UPSI(1S) differential cross sections as a function of rapidity.

Ratio of upsilon cross sectis.on.

UPSI differential cross sections for |y| < 2.

UPSI differential cross sections for |y| < 1.

UPSI differential cross sections for 1< |y| < 2.

The dimuon yield from Z0 decays per unit rapidity and per unit minumum bias event as a function of centrality, and the nuclear modificationfactor RAA derived by using a POWHEG proton-proton reference.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of rapidity in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of rapidity in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $\Delta v_2$ as a function of rapidity in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

The fiducial cross section measured in bins of the azimuthal angle difference between the mesons for events in the fiducial region with 2 Y(1S) with absolute rapidity less than 2.0.

The expected and observed 95% CL limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction for a tetraquark. The branching fraction is the product of the branching fraction for the decay of the resonance to a Y(1S) meson and two muons, and the Y(1S) meson dimuon branching fraction.

The expected and observed 95% CL limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction for a scalar state. The branching fraction is the product of the branching fraction for the decay of the resonance to a Y(1S) meson and two muons, and the Y(1S) meson dimuon branching fraction.

The expected and observed 95% CL limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction for a pseudoscalar state. The branching fraction is the product of the branching fraction for the decay of the resonance to a Y(1S) meson and two muons, and the Y(1S) meson dimuon branching fraction.

The expected and observed 95% CL limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction for a spin-2 state. The branching fraction is the product of the branching fraction for the decay of the resonance to a Y(1S) meson and two muons, and the Y(1S) meson dimuon branching fraction.

Kinematic properties and charges of the four muons selected in data in the signal region for the measurement of the YY production cross section. MUON1 and MUON2 form the dimuon pair associated to the dimuon object required at trigger-level. The invariant mass of both muon pairs is between 8.6 and 11 GeV. All events pass the trigger requirements and have four muons with a total charge of 0 and with vertex probability above 5%. The muons have pT above 3.5 GeV if they have an absolute pseudorapidity below 0.9 and 2.5 GeV otherwise. The muons pass the medium muon identification criterion.

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).

constraint on CP-odd contribution at 68% CL

exclusion significance on pure CP odd contribution

Measured cross section from the helicity fit, divided by bin width, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured charge asymmetry from the helicity fit for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured cross section from the helicity fit, divided by bin width, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured cross section from the helicity fit, divided by bin width, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured charge asymmetry from the helicity fit for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured cross section from the helicity fit, divided by bin width, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured cross section from the helicity fit, divided by bin width, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured charge asymmetry from the helicity fit for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured cross section from the helicity fit, divided by bin width, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured cross section from the helicity fit, divided by bin width, for combination of muon and electron channel

Impact of groups of uncertainties on normalized differential cross section versus $|y_{W}|$ for $W^{-}_{L}$

Impact of groups of uncertainties on charge asymmetry versus $|y_{W}|$ for $W_{L}$

Impact of groups of uncertainties on normalized differential cross section versus $|y_{W}|$ for $W^{+}_{L}$

Impact of groups of uncertainties on normalized differential cross section versus $|y_{W}|$ for $W^{-}_{R}$

Impact of groups of uncertainties on normalized differential cross section versus $|y_{W}|$ for $W^{+}_{R}$

Impact of groups of uncertainties on absolute differential cross section versus $|y_{W}|$ for $W^{+}_{R}$

Impact of groups of uncertainties on absolute differential cross section versus $|y_{W}|$ for $W^{+}_{L}$

Impact of groups of uncertainties on absolute differential cross section versus $|y_{W}|$ for $W^{-}_{L}$

Impact of groups of uncertainties on absolute differential cross section versus $|y_{W}|$ for $W^{-}_{R}$

Impact of groups of uncertainties on charge asymmetry versus $|y_{W}|$ for $W_{R}$

Impact of groups of uncertainties on absolute differential cross section versus $|y_{W}|$ for $W^{+}$

Impact of groups of uncertainties on absolute differential cross section versus $|y_{W}|$ for $W^{+}$

Impact of groups of uncertainties on unpolarized charge asymmetry versus $|y_{W}|$

Impact of groups of uncertainties on normalized differential cross section versus $|y_{W}|$ for $W^{+}$

Impact of groups of uncertainties on normalized differential cross section versus $|y_{W}|$ for $W^{+}$

Impact of groups of uncertainties on $A_{4}$ coefficient versus $|y_{W}|$ for $W^{+}$

Impact of groups of uncertainties on $A_{4}$ coefficient versus $|y_{W}|$ for $W^{+}$

Correlation matrix among normalized signal cross sections in the helicity fit, for combination of muon and electron channel. The cross sections are shown in Fig. 9 in paper

Correlation matrix among normalized signal cross sections in the helicity fit, for combination of muon and electron channel. The cross sections are shown in Fig. 9 in paper

Correlation matrix among PDF nuisances parameters in the helicity fit with fixed signal cross sections, for combination of muon and electron channel. The postfit values for these nuisance parameters are shown in Fig. 20 in paper

Postfit pulls and constraints for some nuisance parameters: $p_T^{W}$ binned $\mu_R$, $\mu_F$, $\mu_R\mu_F$ for $W_R$

Postfit pulls and constraints for some nuisance parameters: $p_T^{W}$ binned $\mu_R$, $\mu_F$, $\mu_R\mu_F$ for $W_L$

Postfit pulls and constraints for some nuisance parameters: PDFs and $\alpha_S$

Postfit pulls and constraints for all nuisance parameters in the W boson helicity fit with fixed signal cross sections, from combination of electron and muon channel. The convention adopted to name nuisance parameters in the tables is reported in glossary_nuisAndPois.txt

Postfit pulls and constraints for all nuisance parameters in the W boson helicity fit with floating signal cross sections, from combination of electron and muon channel. The convention adopted to name nuisance parameters in the tables is reported in glossary_nuisAndPois.txt

Measured double differential cross section from the double-differential cross section fit, divided by 2D-bin area, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured double differential cross section from the double-differential cross section fit, divided by 2D-bin area, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured double differential charge asymmetry from the double-differential cross section fit, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured double differential cross section from the double-differential cross section fit, divided by 2D-bin area, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured double differential cross section from the double-differential cross section fit, divided by 2D-bin area, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured differential cross section from the double-differential cross section fit, divided by bin width, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured differential cross section from the double-differential cross section fit, divided by bin width, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured double differential cross section from the double-differential cross section fit, divided by 2D-bin area, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured double differential cross section from the double-differential cross section fit, divided by 2D-bin area, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured differential charge asymmetry from the double-differential cross section fit, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured differential cross section from the double-differential cross section fit, divided by bin width, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured differential cross section from the double-differential cross section fit, divided by bin width, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured fiducial cross sections and ratio from the double-differential cross section fit, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured differential cross section from the double-differential cross section fit, divided by bin width, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured differential cross section from the double-differential cross section fit, divided by bin width, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured differential charge asymmetry from the double-differential cross section fit, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured differential cross section from the double-differential cross section fit, divided by bin width, for combination of muon and electron channel

Measured differential cross section from the double-differential cross section fit, divided by bin width, for combination of muon and electron channel

Impact of groups of uncertainties on charge asymmetry versus lepton $|\eta|$, for combination of muon and electron channel

Impact of groups of uncertainties on normalized differential cross section versus lepton $|\eta|$, for combination of muon and electron channel

Impact of groups of uncertainties on absolute differential cross section versus lepton $|\eta|$, for combination of muon and electron channel

Impact of groups of uncertainties on absolute differential cross section versus lepton $|\eta|$, for combination of muon and electron channel

Impact of groups of uncertainties on charge asymmetry versus lepton $p_{T}$, for combination of muon and electron channel

Impact of groups of uncertainties on normalized differential cross section versus lepton $p_{T}$, for combination of muon and electron channel

Impact of groups of uncertainties on normalized differential cross section versus lepton $p_{T}$, for combination of muon and electron channel

Impact of groups of uncertainties on absolute differential cross section versus lepton $p_{T}$, for combination of muon and electron channel

Impact of groups of uncertainties on absolute differential cross section versus lepton $p_{T}$, for combination of muon and electron channel

Impact of groups of uncertainties on normalized differential cross section versus lepton $|\eta|$, for combination of muon and electron channel

Postfit pulls and constraints for all nuisance parameters in the W boson double-differential cross section fit with floating signal cross sections, from combination of electron and muon channel. The convention adopted to name nuisance parameters in the tables is reported in glossary_nuisAndPois.txt

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the 2l categories for the signal produced via vector boson fusion.

$m_{X}^{T}$ distribution in data in the 0l 2b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}^{T}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}^{T}$ distribution in data in the 0l $\leq$1b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}^{T}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2e 2b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2e $\leq$1b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2$\mu$ 2b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2$\mu$ $\leq$1b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}^{T}$ distribution in data in the 0l 2b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}^{T}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}^{T}$ distribution in data in the 0l $\leq$1b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}^{T}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2e 2b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2e $\leq$1b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2$\mu$ 2b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2$\mu$ $\leq$1b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma \mathcal{B}$(Z'-> ZH) with all categories combined for the non-VBF signal, including all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The inner green band and the outer yellow band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of expected limits under the background-only hypothesis. The CMS search for a heavy resonance using 2016 data and the same final state [JHEP 11 (2018) 172] is shown as a comparison.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma \mathcal{B}$(Z'-> ZH) with all categories combined for the VBF signal, including all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The inner green band and the outer yellow band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of expected limits under the background-only hypothesis.

Observed exclusion limit in the space of the HVT model parameters [$g_{V}c_{H}$, $g^{2}c_{F}/g_{V}$] for mass hypotheses of 2 TeV for the non-VBF signal.

Observed exclusion limit in the space of the HVT model parameters [$g_{V}c_{H}$, $g^{2}c_{F}/g_{V}$] for mass hypotheses of 3 TeV for the non-VBF signal.

Observed exclusion limit in the space of the HVT model parameters [$g_{V}c_{H}$, $g^{2}c_{F}/g_{V}$] for mass hypotheses of 4 TeV for the non-VBF signal.

Charged particle yield distributions $Y(\Delta r)$ of b jets with $1 < p_{\text{T}}^{\text{trk}} < 12$ GeV are presented as functions of $\Delta r$.b jets with $p_T > 120$ GeV and charged particles with $1 < p^{\text{trk}}_{\text{T}} < 12$ GeV are used to construct the distributions as functions of $\Delta r$ differential $p_{\text{T}}^{\text{trk}}$ bins.

Charged particle yield differences of b to inclusive jets for $1 < p_{\text{T}}^{\text{trk}} < 12$ GeV are presented as functions of $\Delta r$.b jets with $p_T > 120$ GeV and charged particles with $1 < p^{\text{trk}}_{\text{T}} < 12$ GeV are used to construct the distributions as functions of $\Delta r$ differential $p_{\text{T}}^{\text{trk}}$ bins.

The jet shapes $\rho(\Delta r)$ of inclusive jets with $p_{\text{T}} > 120$ GeV and $p^{trk}_T > 1$ GeV are presented as functions of $\Delta r$ for differential $p_{\text{T}}^{\text{trk}}$ bin.

The jet shape distributions $\rho(\Delta r)$ of b jets with $p_{\text{T}} > 120$ GeV and $1< p^{\text{trk}}_{\text{T}} < 12$ GeV are presented as functions of $\Delta r$ for differential $p_{\text{T}}^{\text{trk}}$ bin.

The jet shapes $\rho (\Delta r)$ of inclusive jets with $p_{\text{T}} > 120$ GeV and $p^{\text{trk}}_{\text{T}} > 1$ GeV are presented as functions of $\Delta r.

The jet shapes $\rho (\Delta r)$ of b jets with $p_{\text{T}} > 120$ GeV and $p^{\text{trk}}_{\text{T}} > 1$ GeV are presented as functions of $\Delta r.

The b-to-inclusive jet shape ratios for $p_{\text{T}} > 120$ GeV and $p^{\text{trk}}_{\text{T}} > 1$ GeV are presented as functions of $\Delta r.

The distribution of Top jet $ au_{3}/ au_{2}$ for the simulation of backgrounds and a 2400 GeV (left-handed) b* signal. The area of the total background contribution and area of the signal component are separately normalized to unity. All analysis selections are applied with the exception of the variable being plotted.

The distribution of W jet $ au_{2}/ au_{1}$ for the simulation of backgrounds and a 2400 GeV (left-handed) b* signal. The area of the total background contribution and area of the signal component are separately normalized to unity. All analysis selections are applied with the exception of the variable being plotted.

The distribution of m_{W} for the simulation of backgrounds and a 2400 GeV (left-handed) b* signal. The area of the total background contribution and area of the signal component are separately normalized to unity. All analysis selections are applied with the exception of the variable being plotted.

The distribution of Top jet DeepCSV score for the simulation of backgrounds and a 2400 GeV (left-handed) b* signal. The area of the total background contribution and area of the signal component are separately normalized to unity. All analysis selections are applied with the exception of the variable being plotted.

The distribution of m_{t} for the simulation of backgrounds and a 2400 GeV (left-handed) b* signal. The area of the total background contribution and area of the signal component are separately normalized to unity. All analysis selections are applied with the exception of the variable being plotted.

Distributions of $m_{tW}$ in the signal region for an interval of $m_{t}$ (65-105 GeV).

Distributions of $m_{tW}$ in the signal region for an interval of $m_{t}$ (105-225 GeV).

Distributions of $m_{tW}$ in the signal region for an interval of $m_{t}$ (225-285 GeV).

Distributions of $m_{tW}$ in themultijet control region of the signal region for an interval of $m_{t}$ (65-105 GeV).

Distributions of $m_{tW}$ in themultijet control region of the signal region for an interval of $m_{t}$ (105-225 GeV).

Distributions of $m_{tW}$ in themultijet control region of the signal region for an interval of $m_{t}$ (225-285 GeV).

Distributions of $m_{t}$ in the ttbar measurement region for an interval of $m_{tar{t}}$ (1200-1300 GeV).

Distributions of $m_{t}$ in the ttbar measurement region for an interval of $m_{tar{t}}$ (1300-1800 GeV).

Distributions of $m_{t}$ in the ttbar measurement region for an interval of $m_{tar{t}}$ (1800-3000 GeV).

Distributions of $m_{t}$ in themultijet control region of the ttbar measurement region for an interval of $m_{tar{t}}$ (1200-1300 GeV).

Distributions of $m_{t}$ in themultijet control region of the ttbar measurement region for an interval of $m_{tar{t}}$ (1300-1800 GeV).

Distributions of $m_{t}$ in themultijet control region of the ttbar measurement region for an interval of $m_{tar{t}}$ (1800-3000 GeV).

The correlation matrix for the njet measurement. The last bin is inclusive.

The fiducial integrated signal strength and cross section The uncertainty breakdown is given in terms of statistical (stat), experimental (exp), theoretical uncertainties on the background (bkg) and on the signal (sig), and the luminosity uncertainty (lumi). The fiducial cross section and its full uncertainty in each bin are also given.

The reconstructed m$_{tb}$ distributions in data and expected background in validation region for the data taking period of 2017. Yield in each bin is divided by the corresponding bin width.

The reconstructed m$_{tb}$ distributions in data and expected background in signal region for the data taking period of 2018. Yield in each bin is divided by the corresponding bin width.

The reconstructed m$_{tb}$ distributions in data and expected background in validation region for the data taking period of 2018. Yield in each bin is divided by the corresponding bin width.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the production of right-handed W' boson using data and backgrounds in three years combined. Theory prediction is also shown.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the production of left-handed W' boson using data and backgrounds in three years combined. Theory prediction is also shown.

Fitted background prediction and observed data counts for 2018B as functions of $N_{\text{jets}}$ in each of the four $S_{\textrm{NN}}$ bins. The signal distributions normalized to the predicted cross section for the RPV model with $m_{\tilde{t}}$ = 450 GeV and the stealth SYY model with $m_{\tilde{t}}$ = 850 GeV are shown for comparison.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limit on the top squark pair production cross section as a function of the top squark mass for the RPV SUSY models.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limit on the top squark pair production cross section as a function of the top squark mass for the stealth SYY SUSY models.

Cut flow of the signal region selection decribed in section II.

Cut flow of the signal region selection decribed in section II.

Cut flow of the signal region selection decribed in section II.

Cut flow of the signal region selection decribed in section II.

The ratio between the observed data and the simulation in the high $\Delta$m portion of the $\ell+\text{jets}$ control region as a function of $p_T^{miss}$ after scaling the simulation to match the total yield in data.

Comparison between data and simulation in the high $\Delta$m portion of the $\ell+\text{jets}$ control region as a function of $N_t$ after scaling the simulation to match the total yield in data. The hatched region indicates the total shape uncertainty in the simulation.

The ratio between the observed data and the simulation in the high $\Delta$m portion of the $\ell+\text{jets}$ control region as a function of $N_t$ after scaling the simulation to match the total yield in data.

Comparison between data and simulation in the high $\Delta$m portion of the $\ell+\text{jets}$ control region as a function of $N_W$ after scaling the simulation to match the total yield in data. The hatched region indicates the total shape uncertainty in the simulation.

The ratio between the observed data and the simulation in the high $\Delta$m portion of the $\ell+\text{jets}$ control region as a function of $N_W$ after scaling the simulation to match the total yield in data.

Comparison between data and simulation in the high $\Delta$m portion of the $\ell+\text{jets}$ control region as a function of $N_{\text{res}}$ after scaling the simulation to match the total yield in data. The hatched region indicates the total shape uncertainty in the simulation.

The ratio between the observed data and the simulation in the high $\Delta$m portion of the $\ell+\text{jets}$ control region as a function of $N_{\text{res}}$ after scaling the simulation to match the total yield in data.

Observed event yields in data (black points) and predicted SM background (filled histograms) for the low $\Delta$m search bins 0--52. The signal models are denoted in the legend with the masses in GeV of the SUSY particles in parentheses: $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1})$ or $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1})$ for the T2 or T1 signal models, respectively. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the background prediction. The (unstacked) distributions for two example signal models are also shown.

The ratio of the data to the total background prediction for the low $\Delta$m search bins 0--52. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the background prediction.

Observed event yields in data (black points) and predicted SM background (filled histograms) for the high $\Delta$m search bins 53--104. The signal models are denoted in the legend with the masses in GeV of the SUSY particles in parentheses: $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1})$ or $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1})$ for the T2 or T1 signal models, respectively. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the background prediction. The (unstacked) distributions for two example signal models are also shown.

The ratio of the data to the total background prediction for the high $\Delta$m search bins 53--104. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the background prediction.

Observed event yields in data (black points) and predicted SM background (filled histograms) for the high $\Delta$m search bins 105--152 with ${N_b = 2}$. The signal models are denoted in the legend with the masses in GeV of the SUSY particles in parentheses: $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1})$ or $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1})$ for the T2 or T1 signal models, respectively. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the background prediction. The (unstacked) distributions for two example signal models are also shown.

The ratio of the data to the total background prediction for the high $\Delta$m search bins 105--152 with ${N_b = 2}$. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the background prediction.

Observed event yields in data (black points) and predicted SM background (filled histograms) for the high $\Delta$m search bins 153--182 with ${N_b \geq 3}$. The signal models are denoted in the legend with the masses in GeV of the SUSY particles in parentheses: $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1})$ or $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1})$ for the T2 or T1 signal models, respectively. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the background prediction. The (unstacked) distributions for two example signal models are also shown.

The ratio of the data to the total background prediction for the high $\Delta$m search bins 153--182 with ${N_b \geq 3}$. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the background prediction.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2tt simplified model as a function of the top squark and LSP masses. No interpretation is provided for signal models for which ${|{m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} - m_t}| < 25 GeV}$ and ${m_{\tilde{t}} < 275 GeV}$ as described in the text.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2tt simplified model as a function of the top squark and LSP masses. No interpretation is provided for signal models for which ${|{m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} - m_t}| < 25 GeV}$ and ${m_{\tilde{t}} < 275 GeV}$ as described in the text.

The observed exclusion contour of the T2tt simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$). No interpretation is provided for signal models for which ${|{m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} - m_t}| < 25 GeV}$ and ${m_{\tilde{t}} < 275 GeV}$ as described in the text.

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2tt simplified model and the region containing 68 and 95\% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis. No interpretation is provided for signal models for which ${|{m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} - m_t}| < 25 GeV}$ and ${m_{\tilde{t}} < 275 GeV}$ as described in the text.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2bW simplified model as a function of the top squark and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2bW simplified model as a function of the top squark and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T2bW simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2bW simplified model and the region containing 68 and 95\% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2tb simplified model as a function of the top squark and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2tb simplified model as a function of the top squark and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T2tb simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2tb simplified model and the region containing 68 and 95\% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2ttC simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2ttC simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T2ttC simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2ttC simplified model and the region containing 68\% ($\pm 1\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2bWC simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2bWC simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T2bWC simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2bWC simplified model and the region containing 68\% ($\pm 1\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2cc simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2cc simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T2cc simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2cc simplified model and the region containing 68\% ($\pm 1\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T1tttt simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T1tttt simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T1tttt simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T1tttt simplified model and the region containing 68 and 95\% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T1ttbb simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T1ttbb simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T1ttbb simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T1ttbb simplified model and the region containing 68 and 95\% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T5ttcc simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses. The upper limits do not take into account contributions from direct top squark pair production; however, its effect is small for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} > 600 GeV$, which corresponds to the phase space beyond the exclusions based on direct top squark pair production. The excluded regions based on direct top squark pair production from this search and earlier searches are indicated by the hatched areas.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T5ttcc simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses. The uppser limits do not take into account contributions from direct top squark pair production; however, its effect is small for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} > 600 GeV$, which corresponds to the phase space beyond the exclusions based on direct top squark pair production. The excluded regions based on direct top squark pair production from this search and earlier searches are indicated by the hatched areas.

The observed exclusion contour of the T5ttcc simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$). The expected and observed upper limits do not take into account contributions from direct top squark pair production; however, its effect is small for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} > 600 GeV$, which corresponds to the phase space beyond the exclusions based on direct top squark pair production. The excluded regions based on direct top squark pair production from this search and earlier searches are indicated by the hatched areas.

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T5ttcc simplified model and the region containing 68% and 95% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis. The expected and observed upper limits do not take into account contributions from direct top squark pair production; however, its effect is small for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} > 600 GeV$, which corresponds to the phase space beyond the exclusions based on direct top squark pair production. The excluded regions based on direct top squark pair production from this search and earlier searches are indicated by the hatched areas.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 3.3 ns and with a purely wino LSP. The branching fraction for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$ is set to 100%. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 2:1 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 33 ns and with a purely wino LSP. The branching fraction for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$ is set to 100%. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 2:1 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 33 ns and with a purely wino LSP. The branching fraction for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$ is set to 100%. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 2:1 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 333 ns and with a purely wino LSP. The branching fraction for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$ is set to 100%. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 2:1 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 333 ns and with a purely wino LSP. The branching fraction for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$ is set to 100%. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 2:1 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 0.3 ns and with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 0.3 ns and with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 3.3 ns and with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 3.3 ns and with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 33 ns and with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 33 ns and with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 333 ns and with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 333 ns and with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed constraints on chargino lifetime and mass for a purely wino LSP in the context of AMSB, where the chargino lifetime is explicitly varied. The chargino branching fraction is set to 100% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The region to the left of the curve is excluded at 95% CL. The prediction from PLB 721 (2013) 252 is indicated in the dashed line.

The expected and observed constraints on chargino lifetime and mass for a purely wino LSP in the context of AMSB, where the chargino lifetime is explicitly varied. The chargino branching fraction is set to 100% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The region to the left of the curve is excluded at 95% CL. The prediction from PLB 721 (2013) 252 is indicated in the dashed line.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass and mean proper lifetime, with a purely wino LSP. The branching fraction for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$ is set to 100%. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 2:1 ratio for all chargino masses considered.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass and mean proper lifetime, with a purely wino LSP. The branching fraction for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$ is set to 100%. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 2:1 ratio for all chargino masses considered.

The expected and observed constraints on chargino lifetime and mass for a purely higgsino LSP in the context of AMSB, where the chargino lifetime is explicitly varied. The chargino branching fraction is set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The region to the left of the curve is excluded at 95% CL. The prediction from Phys. Lett. B 781 (2018) 306 is indicated in the dashed line.

The expected and observed constraints on chargino lifetime and mass for a purely higgsino LSP in the context of AMSB, where the chargino lifetime is explicitly varied. The chargino branching fraction is set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The region to the left of the curve is excluded at 95% CL. The prediction from Phys. Lett. B 781 (2018) 306 is indicated in the dashed line.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass and mean proper lifetime, with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass and mean proper lifetime, with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018A data-taking period, corresponding to $21.1\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018A data-taking period, corresponding to $21.1\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018A data-taking period, corresponding to $21.1\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018A data-taking period, corresponding to $21.1\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018A data-taking period, corresponding to $21.1\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018A data-taking period, corresponding to $21.1\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018A data-taking period, corresponding to $21.1\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018A data-taking period, corresponding to $21.1\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018B data-taking period, corresponding to $38.6\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018B data-taking period, corresponding to $38.6\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018B data-taking period, corresponding to $38.6\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018B data-taking period, corresponding to $38.6\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018B data-taking period, corresponding to $38.6\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018B data-taking period, corresponding to $38.6\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018B data-taking period, corresponding to $38.6\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018B data-taking period, corresponding to $38.6\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2017 data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2017 data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2017 data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2017 data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2017 data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2017 data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2017 data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2017 data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018A data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018A data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018A data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018A data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018A data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018A data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018A data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018A data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018B data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018B data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018B data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018B data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018B data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018B data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018B data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018B data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Summary of the estimated backgrounds and the observation. The first and second uncertainties shown are the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

Summary of the estimated backgrounds and the observation. The first and second uncertainties shown are the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

Experimental uncertainties affecting transfer factors in the analysis that is used to estimate the W background in the signal region (SR). The number of W boson events are denoted as $W_{SR}$ for the SR and in analogy as $W_{\mu\nu}$ ($W_{e\nu}$) for the single-muon (single-electron) control region (CR).

Uncertainties assigned to the simulation based processes in SR and CRs.

Uncertainties assigned to the simulation based processes in SR and CRs.

Cross sections (fb) at large Z $p_{T}$ values in the Z -> $\ell\ell$ and Z -> $\nu\nu$ channels, and their combination. The theoretical predictions from Madgraph at NLO in QCD and corrected to NLO in electroweak using the NNPDF 3.0 are also reported. With the exception of the largest Z $p_{T}$ bin, the statistical uncertainties in the measurements are much smaller than the systematic uncertainties. Both measurements and predictions correspond to $\sigma \mathcal{B}(Z -> \ell\ell)$, where $\sigma$ is the total fiducial cross section, $\mathcal{B}$ is the branching fraction, and $\ell$ is a charged lepton. The $Z -> \nu\nu$ measurement corresponds to $\sigma \mathcal{B}(Z -> \ell\ell)/\mathcal{B}(Z -> \nu\nu)$.

Cross sections (fb) at large Z $p_{T}$ values in the Z -> $\ell\ell$ and Z -> $\nu\nu$ channels, and their combination. The theoretical predictions from Madgraph at NLO in QCD and corrected to NLO in electroweak using the NNPDF 3.0 are also reported. With the exception of the largest Z $p_{T}$ bin, the statistical uncertainties in the measurements are much smaller than the systematic uncertainties. Both measurements and predictions correspond to $\sigma \mathcal{B}(Z -> \ell\ell)$, where $\sigma$ is the total fiducial cross section, $\mathcal{B}$ is the branching fraction, and $\ell$ is a charged lepton. The $Z -> \nu\nu$ measurement corresponds to $\sigma \mathcal{B}(Z -> \ell\ell)/\mathcal{B}(Z -> \nu\nu)$.

Cross sections normalized to the total cross section measurements at high Z $p_{T}$ values in the Z -> $\ell\ell$ and Z -> $\nu\nu$ channels, and in their combination. The uncertainty includes both statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Cross sections normalized to the total cross section measurements at high Z $p_{T}$ values in the Z -> $\ell\ell$ and Z -> $\nu\nu$ channels, and in their combination. The uncertainty includes both statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The relative statistical and systematic uncertainties from various sources for the absolute cross section measurements in bins of Z $p_{T}$ on charged leptons.

The relative statistical and systematic uncertainties from various sources for the absolute cross section measurements in bins of Z $p_{T}$ on charged leptons.

The relative statistical and systematic uncertainties from various sources for the relative cross section measurements in bins of Z $p_{T}$ on charged leptons.

The relative statistical and systematic uncertainties from various sources for the relative cross section measurements in bins of Z $p_{T}$ on charged leptons.

The relative statistical and systematic uncertainties from various sources for the absolute cross section measurements in bins of Z $p_{T}$ on neutrinos.

The relative statistical and systematic uncertainties from various sources for the absolute cross section measurements in bins of Z $p_{T}$ on neutrinos.

The relative statistical and systematic uncertainties from various sources for the relative cross section measurements in bins of Z $p_{T}$ on neutrinos.

The relative statistical and systematic uncertainties from various sources for the relative cross section measurements in bins of Z $p_{T}$ on neutrinos.

The relative statistical and systematic uncertainties from various sources for the absolute cross section measurements in bins of Z $p_{T}$ on neutrinos and charged leptons.

The relative statistical and systematic uncertainties from various sources for the absolute cross section measurements in bins of Z $p_{T}$ on neutrinos and charged leptons.

The relative statistical and systematic uncertainties from various sources for the relative cross section measurements in bins of Z $p_{T}$ on neutrinos and charged leptons.

The relative statistical and systematic uncertainties from various sources for the relative cross section measurements in bins of Z $p_{T}$ on neutrinos and charged leptons.

Cross section measurements in bins of Z $p_{T}$ on neutrinos and charged leptons.

Cross section measurements in bins of Z $p_{T}$ on neutrinos and charged leptons.

Yield ratios of chi_c2 over chi_c1 mesons as a function of costh (HX) in the J/psi pT range 8-12 GeV

Yield ratios of chi_c2 over chi_c1 mesons as a function of costh (HX) in the J/psi pT range 12-18 GeV

Yield ratios of chi_c2 over chi_c1 mesons as a function of costh (HX) in the J/psi pT range 18-30 GeV

The $m_{W}^{T}$ distribution from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 2j1t (left) and 3j1t (right) categories for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 2j1t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and b jet momenta system (right), shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distributionfrom the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 2j1t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and b jet momenta system (right), shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distributionfrom the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 2j1t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and b jet momenta system (right), shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distributionfrom the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 2j1t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and b jet momenta system (right), shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distributionfrom the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j1t category: the $p_{T}^{miss}$ in the transverse plane (left) and the value of the MVA b tagger discriminator when applied to the extra jet (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points andthe hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j1t category: the $p_{T}^{miss}$ in the transverse plane (left) and the value of the MVA b tagger discriminator when applied to the extra jet (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points andthe hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j1t category: the $p_{T}^{miss}$ in the transverse plane (left) and the value of the MVA b tagger discriminator when applied to the extra jet (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points andthe hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j1t category: the $p_{T}^{miss}$ in the transverse plane (left) and the value of the MVA b tagger discriminator when applied to the extra jet (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points andthe hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j2t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and non-b-tagged jet system (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j2t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and non-b-tagged jet system (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j2t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and non-b-tagged jet system (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j2t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and non-b-tagged jet system (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Values of the third-row elements of the CKM matrix inferred from low-energy measurements with the respective values of the top quark decay branching fractions. The q in bs{V_{tq}} and \mathcal{B}(t o Wq) in the first column refers to b, s, and d quarks, according to the quark label shown in the header row.

For each of the production and decay vertices, the cross section times branching fraction for the corresponding signal process from simulation. The uncertainties shown includethose from the factorisation and renormalisation scales, the PDFs, and any experimental uncer-tainties, where appropriate.

The sources and relative values in percent of the systematic uncertainty in the measurement of the STb,b cross section. The uncertainties are broken up into profiled and nonprofiled sources.

The signal strengths obtained under SM assumptions.

Results obtained under SM assumptions.

Results obtained under first BSM scenario.

Results obtained under second BSM scenario.

Measured cross sections obtained with the BDT-based analyses. The uncertainties listed are statistical and systematic. For the results listed in the left (right) half of the table, Higgs boson contributions are counted as signal (background). The VVV cross section is calculated from the fit for \mu_{comb}. For ZZZ production, 95% confidence level upper limits are reported.

Mean $p_T$ values of the $\Upsilon(1$S$)$, $\Upsilon(2$S$)$, and $\Upsilon(3$S$)$ states with $p_T\,>\,0\,GeV$ and $|y|\,<\,1.2$ as a function of track multiplicity $N_{track}$

Ratio $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ with $|y|\,<\,1.2$ as a function of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in $0<p_T<5\,$GeV range

Ratio $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ with $|y|\,<\,1.2$ as a function of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in $5<p_T<7\,$GeV range

Ratio $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ with $|y|\,<\,1.2$ as a function of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in $7<p_T<9\,$GeV range

Ratio $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ with $|y|\,<\,1.2$ as a function of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in $9<p_T<11\,$GeV range

Ratio $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ with $|y|\,<\,1.2$ as a function of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in $11<p_T<15\,$GeV range

Ratio $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ with $|y|\,<\,1.2$ as a function of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in $15<p_T<20\,$GeV range

Ratio $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ with $|y|\,<\,1.2$ as a function of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in $20<p_T<50\,$GeV range

Ratio $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ with $|y|\,<\,1.2$ as a function of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in $0<p_T<5\,$GeV range

Ratio $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ with $|y|\,<\,1.2$ as a function of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in $5<p_T<7\,$GeV range

Ratio $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ with $|y|\,<\,1.2$ as a function of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in $7<p_T<9\,$GeV range

Ratio $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ with $|y|\,<\,1.2$ as a function of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in $9<p_T<11\,$GeV range

Ratio $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ with $|y|\,<\,1.2$ as a function of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in $11<p_T<15\,$GeV range

Ratio $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ with $|y|\,<\,1.2$ as a function of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in $15<p_T<20\,$GeV range

Ratio $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ with $|y|\,<\,1.2$ as a function of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in $20<p_T<50\,$GeV range

Ratios $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ and $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ as functions of "forward" track multiplicity $N_{track}^{\Delta\phi}$ for $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ states with $p_T\,>\,7\,GeV$ and $|y|\,<\,1.2$. Forward tracks are those with momentum direction in $\Delta\phi\,<\,\pi/3$ w.r.t. the $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ momentum direction.

Ratios $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ and $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ as functions of "transverse" track multiplicity $N_{track}^{\Delta\phi}$ for $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ states with $p_T\,>\,7\,GeV$ and $|y|\,<\,1.2$. Transverse tracks are those with momentum direction in $\pi/3\,<\,\Delta\phi\,<\,2\pi/3$ w.r.t. the $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ momentum direction.

Ratios $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ and $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ as functions of "backward" track multiplicity $N_{track}^{\Delta\phi}$ for $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ states with $p_T\,>\,7\,GeV$ and $|y|\,<\,1.2$. Backward tracks are those with momentum direction in $\Delta\phi\,>\,2\pi/3$ w.r.t. the $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ momentum direction.

Ratios $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ and $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ as functions of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ for $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ states with $p_T\,>\,7\,GeV$ and $|y|\,<\,1.2$ and $N^{\Delta R}_{track}\,=\,0$ charged particles produced in $\Delta R\,<\,0.5$ cone around $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ momentum direction.

Ratios $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ and $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ as functions of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ for $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ states with $p_T\,>\,7\,GeV$ and $|y|\,<\,1.2$ and $N^{\Delta R}_{track}\,=\,1$ charged particles produced in $\Delta R\,<\,0.5$ cone around $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ momentum direction.

Ratios $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ and $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ as functions of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ for $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ states with $p_T\,>\,7\,GeV$ and $|y|\,<\,1.2$ and $N^{\Delta R}_{track}\,=\,2$ charged particles produced in $\Delta R\,<\,0.5$ cone around $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ momentum direction.

Ratios $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ and $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ as functions of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ for $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ states with $p_T\,>\,7\,GeV$ and $|y|\,<\,1.2$ and $N^{\Delta R}_{track}\,>\,2$ charged particles produced in $\Delta R\,<\,0.5$ cone around $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ momentum direction.

Ratios $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ and $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ as functions of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in transverse sphericity bin $0.00\,<\,S_T\,<\,0.55$ for $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ states with $p_T\,>\,7\,GeV$ and $|y|\,<\,1.2$.

Ratios $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ and $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ as functions of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in transverse sphericity bin $0.55\,<\,S_T\,<\,0.70$ for $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ states with $p_T\,>\,7\,GeV$ and $|y|\,<\,1.2$.

Ratios $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ and $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ as functions of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in transverse sphericity bin $0.70\,<\,S_T\,<\,0.85$ for $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ states with $p_T\,>\,7\,GeV$ and $|y|\,<\,1.2$.

Ratios $\Upsilon(2$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ and $\Upsilon(3$S$)\,/\,\Upsilon(1$S$)$ as functions of track multiplicity $N_{track}$ in transverse sphericity bin $0.85\,<\,S_T\,<\,1.00$ for $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ states with $p_T\,>\,7\,GeV$ and $|y|\,<\,1.2$.

Efficiency-corrected multiplicity bins used in the $\Upsilon(n$S$)$ ratio analysis and the corresponding mean number of charged particle tracks.

95% CL limits on the Lagrangian approach (a.k.a. LEP parametrization) parameters in Wgamma events.