Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertainty as a function of the hadronic pseudo-top-quark $|y(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{h}})|$ in the electron channel. The results shown in this table are one of the inputs for the combined results.

Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertainty as a function of the leptonic pseudo-top-quark $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{l}})$ in the muon channel. The results shown in this table are one of the inputs for the combined results.

Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertainty as a function of the leptonic pseudo-top-quark $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{l}})$ in the electron channel. The results shown in this table are one of the inputs for the combined results.

Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertainty as a function of the leptonic pseudo-top-quark $|y(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{l}})|$ in the muon channel. The results shown in this table are one of the inputs for the combined results.

Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertainty as a function of the leptonic pseudo-top-quark $|y(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{l}})|$ in the electron channel. The results shown in this table are one of the inputs for the combined results.

Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertainty as a function of the pseudo-top-quark-pair $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{l}}\hat{t}_{\mathrm{h}})$ in the muon channel.The results shown in this table are one of the inputs for the combined results.

Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertainty as a function of the pseudo-top-quark-pair $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{l}}\hat{t}_{\mathrm{h}})$ in the electron channel. The results shown in this table are one of the inputs for the combined results.

Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertainty as a function of the pseudo-top-quark-pair $|y(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{l}}\hat{t}_{\mathrm{h}})|$ in the muon channel. The results shown in this table are one of the inputs for the combined results.

Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertainty as a function of the pseudo-top-quark-pair $|y(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{l}}\hat{t}_{\mathrm{h}})|$ in the electron channel. The results shown in this table are one of the inputs for the combined results.

Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertainty as a function of the pseudo-top-quark-pair $m(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{l}}\hat{t}_{\mathrm{h}})$ in the muon channel. The results shown in this table are one of the inputs for the combined results.

Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertainty as a function of the pseudo-top-quark-pair $m(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{l}}\hat{t}_{\mathrm{h}})$ in the electron channel. The results shown in this table are one of the inputs for the combined results.

Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertainty as a function of the hadronic pseudo-top-quark $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{h}})$ after the electron and muon channel combination. The results shown in this table correspond to the results presented in figure 11(a).

Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertainty as a function of the hadronic pseudo-top-quark $|y(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{h}})|$ after the electron and muon channel combination. The results shown in this table correspond to the results presentedin figure 12(a).

Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertainty as a function of theleptonic pseudo-top-quark $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{l}})$ after the electron and muon channel combination.The results shown in this table correspond to the results presented in figure 11(b).

Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertaintyas a function of the leptonic pseudo-top-quark $|y(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{l}})|$ after the electron and muon channel combination.The results shown in this table correspond to the results presented in figure 12(b).

Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertainty as a function ofthe pseudo-top-quark-pair $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{l}}\hat{t}_{\mathrm{h}})$ after the electron and muon channel combination.The results shown in this table correspond to the results presented in figure 13(a).

Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertainty as a function of the pseudo-top-quark-pair $|y(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{l}}\hat{t}_{\mathrm{h}})|$ after the electron and muon channel combination.The results shown in this table correspond to the results presented in figure 13(b).

Measured $t\bar{t}$ differential cross-section and relative uncertainty as a function of the pseudo-top-quark-pair $m(\hat{t}_{\mathrm{l}}\hat{t}_{\mathrm{h}})$after the electron and muon channel combination. The results shown in this table correspond to the results presented in figure 13(c).

Selection acceptance times efficiency as a function of WPRIME mass at truth level for left- and right-handed WPRIME MC. The total efficiency curves correspond to the sum of the efficiencies of the one b-tag and two b-tag categories.

Cutflow (efficiency with respect to total number of events in %) for several WPRIME masses in the left-handed and in the right-handed model for hadronic top-quark decays.

Overview of the signal acceptance times efficiency (A x Eff) for the hadronic top-quark decay for both categories, the predicted cross section times branching ratio to TOP BOTTOM, as well as the observed 95% CL limit on the cross section times branching ratio for several WPRIME masses in the left-handed and in the right-handed model. The expected signal event yields in the two categories for 20.3 fb-1 of 8 TeV data are also shown.

Expected and observed $am_{T2}$ distribution for bCd_high1 SR, before applying the $am_{T2}>200$ GeV requirement. The uncertainty includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflows.

Expected and observed leading b-jet $p_T$ distribution for bCd_high2 SR, before applying the leading b-jet $p_T>170$ GeV requirement. The uncertainty includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflows.

Expected and observed $E_T^{miss}$ distribution for tNbC_mix SR, before applying the $E_T^{miss}>270$ GeV requirement. The uncertainty includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflows.

Expected and observed lepton $p_T$ distribution for bCa_low SR. The uncertainty includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflows.

Expected and observed lepton $p_T$ distribution for bCa_med SR. The uncertainty includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflows.

Expected and observed $am_T2$ distribution for bCb_med1 SR. The uncertainty includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflows.

Expected and observed $am_T2$ distribution for bCb_high SR. The uncertainty includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflows.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1$ three-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to bW\chi^0_1$). This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1$ four-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to bff'\chi^0_1$). This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=150$ GeV. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=106$ GeV. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+5$ GeV. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\tilde t_1}-10$ GeV. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}=300$ GeV. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Upper limits on the model cross-section for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Upper limit on signal events for the $\tilde t_1$ three-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to bW\chi^0_1$).

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1$ three-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to bW\chi^0_1$).

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1$ three-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to bW\chi^0_1$).

Upper limit on signal events for the $\tilde t_1$ four-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to bff'\chi^0_1$).

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1$ four-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to bff'\chi^0_1$).

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1$ four-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to bff'\chi^0_1$).

Upper limit on signal events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Upper limit on signal events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=150$ GeV.

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=150$ GeV.

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=150$ GeV.

Upper limit on signal events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=106$ GeV.

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=106$ GeV.

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=106$ GeV.

Upper limit on signal events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+5$ GeV.

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+5$ GeV.

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+5$ GeV.

Upper limit on signal events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Upper limit on signal events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\tilde t_1}-10$ GeV.

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\tilde t_1}-10$ GeV.

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\tilde t_1}-10$ GeV.

Upper limit on signal events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}=300$ GeV.

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}=300$ GeV.

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}=300$ GeV.

Acceptance of tN_diag SR ($E_T^{miss}>150$ GeV, $m_T>140$ GeV) for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of tN_med SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of tN_boost SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCb_med2 SR ($am_{T2}>250$ GeV, $m_T>60$ GeV) for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCc_diag SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCd_bulk SR ($am_{T2}>175$ GeV, $m_T>120$ GeV) for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCd_high1 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCd_high2 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCa_med for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCa_low for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCb_med1 for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCb_high for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of 3-body SR ($80<am_{T2}<90$ GeV, $m_T>120$ GeV) for the 3-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to b W\chi^0_1$). The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of tNbC_mix SR for the asymmetric scenario ($\tilde t_1$, $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$, b $\chi^\pm_1$) with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Efficiency of tN_diag SR ($E_T^{miss}>150$ GeV, $m_T>140$ GeV) for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of tN_med SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of tN_boost SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCb_med2 SR ($am_{T2}>250$ GeV, $m_T>60$ GeV) for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCc_diag SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCd_bulk SR ($am_{T2}>175$ GeV, $m_T>120$ GeV) for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCd_high1 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCd_high2 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCa_med for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCa_low for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCb_med1 for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCb_high for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of 3-body SR ($80<am_{T2}<90$ GeV, $m_T>120$ GeV) for the 3-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to b W\chi^0_1$). The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of tNbC_mix SR for the asymmetric scenario ($\tilde t_1$, $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$, b $\chi^\pm_1$) with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Number of generated events for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Number of generated events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Number of generated events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV; $E_T^{miss}$(gen)$>60$ GeV.

Number of generated events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV; $E_T^{miss}$(gen)$>250$ GeV.

Number of generated events for the 3-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to b W\chi^0_1$).

Number of generated events for the asymmetric scenario ($\tilde t_1$, $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$, b $\chi^\pm_1$) with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Cross-section for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Cross-section for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Cross-section for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Cross-section for the 3-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to b W\chi^0_1$).

Cross-section for the asymmetric scenario ($\tilde t_1$, $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$, b $\chi^\pm_1$) with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected tN_diag SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$, using the 2 highest $E_T^{miss}$ and 2 highest $m_T$ bins.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected tN_med SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected tN_boost SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCb_med2 SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$, using the 2 highest $am_{T2}$ and 2 highest $m_T$ bins.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCc_diag SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCd_bulk SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$, using the 2 highest $am_{T2}$ and 2 highest $m_T$ bins.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCd_high1 SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCd_high2 SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCa_med SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCa_low SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCb_med1 SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCb_high SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected 3-body SR yields for the 3-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to b W\chi^0_1$), using the 2 lowest $am_{T2}$ and 2 highest $m_T$ bins.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected tNbC_mix SR yields for the asymmetric scenario ($\tilde t_1$, $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$, b $\chi^\pm_1$) with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in tN_diag SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in tN_med SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in tN_boost SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in bCb_med2 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in bCc_diag SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in bCd_bulk SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in bCd_high1 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in bCd_high2 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in bCa_med SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Observed CLs in bCa_low SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Observed CLs in bCb_med1 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Observed CLs in bCb_high SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Observed CLs in 3-body SR for the 3-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to b W\chi^0_1$).

Observed CLs in tNbC_mix SR for the mixed scenario (50% $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$, 50% $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^0_1$).

Expected CLs in tN_diag SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected CLs in tN_med SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected CLs in tN_boost SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected CLs in bCb_med2 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected CLs in bCc_diag SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected CLs in bCd_bulk SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected CLs in bCd_high1 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected CLs in bCd_high2 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected CLs in bCa_med SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Expected CLs in bCa_low SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Expected CLs in bCb_med1 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Expected CLs in bCb_high SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Expected CLs in 3-body SR for the 3-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to b W\chi^0_1$).

Expected CLs in tNbC_mix SR for the mixed scenario (50% $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$, 50% $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$).

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total uncertainty on the measured values of $\sigma(tq)$, $\sigma(\bar{t}q)$, $R_t$, and $\sigma(tq+\bar{t}q)$. The evaluation of the systematic uncertainties has a statistical uncertainty of $0.3\,\%$. Uncertainties contributing less than $1.0\,\%$ are marked with "$<1$" in the paper. To provide numerical values for this table in HEPdata, these uncertainties are approximated with $\pm 0.5\,\%$. This approximation is applied to all measurements for the following uncertainties$:$ JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by-jets, JES pileup, $b$-JES, jet vertex fraction, mistag efficiency and $W+\;$jets shape variation. For the measurement of $\sigma(tq)$ the approximation is applied in addition to the following uncertainties$:$ JES flavor response, $c$-tagging efficiency, $t\bar{t}$ generator + parton shower and $t\bar{t}$ ISR/FSR. For the measurement of $\sigma(\bar{t}q)$ the approximation is applied in addition to these uncertainties$:$ JES flavor response, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, and $t\bar{t}$ ISR/FSR. For the measurement of $R_t$ the approximation is applied in addition to these uncertainties$:$ JES detector, $b$-tagging efficiency, $c$-tagging efficiency, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance and $tq$ scale variations. For the measurement of $\sigma(tq+\bar{t}q)$ the approximation is applied in addition to these uncertainties$:$ JES flavor response, $c$-tagging efficiency, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $t\bar{t}$ generator + parton shower and $t\bar{t}$ ISR/FSR.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross sections and normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross sections as functions of ABS(YRAP(T)).

The cross sections for top-quark and top-antiquark production in the t-channel, together with the cross-section ratio.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross sections and normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross sections as functions of ABS(YRAP(TBAR)).

Parametrization factors for the $m_{t}$ dependence [see Eq. (4) in the paper] of $\sigma(tq)$, $\sigma(\bar tq)$, and $\sigma(t q+\bar t q)$.

The cross sections for top-quark and top-antiquark production in the t-channel, together with the cross-section ratio.

The value of $|V_{tb}|^{2}$ is extracted by dividing the measured value of $\sigma(t q+\bar t q)$ by the prediction of the approximate NNLO calculation. The experimental and theoretical uncertainties are added in quadrature.

Event yields for the 2-jet-$\ell^{+}$ and 2-jet-$\ell^{-}$ HPR channels. The expectation for the signal and background yields correspond to the result of the binned maximum-likelihood fit described in Sec. $\mathrm{VI~D}$ in the paper. The uncertainty of the expectations is the normalization uncertainty of each process after the fit, as described in Sec. $\mathrm{VII~F}$ in the paper.

Migration matrix relating the parton level $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ shown on the $y$ axis and the reconstruction level $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell \nu b)$ shown on the $x$ axis for the top-quark $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution.

Migration matrix relating the parton level $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)$ shown on the $y$ axis and the reconstruction level $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell \nu b)$ shown on the $x$ axis for the top-antiquark $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution.

Migration matrix relating the parton level $|y(t)|$ shown on the $y$ axis and the reconstruction level $|y(\ell \nu b)|$ shown on the $x$ axis for the top-quark $|y|$ distribution.

Migration matrix relating the parton level $|y(\bar t)|$ shown on the $y$ axis and the reconstruction level $|y(\ell \nu b)|$ shown on the $x$ axis for the top-antiquark $|y|$ distribution.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $|y(t)|$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $|y(\bar t)|$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $|y(t)|$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $|y(\bar t)|$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Comparison between the measured differential cross sections and the predictions from the NLO calculation using the MSTW2008 PDF set. For each variable and prediction a $\chi^{2}$ value is calculated with HERAfitter using the covariance matrix of each measured spectrum. The theory uncertainties of the predictions are treated as uncorrelated. The number of degrees of freedom (NDF) is equal to the number of bins in the measured spectrum.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, $W+$ jets shape variation, and $t \bar{t}$ generator. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, $b-$JES, jet-vertex fraction, mistag efficiency, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, $W+$ jets shape variation, and $t \bar{t}$ generator. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}|y(t)|}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, $W+$ jets shape variation, $t \bar{t}$ generator, $t \bar{t}$ ISR/FSR, and unfolding. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}|y(\bar t)|}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, $b-$JES, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, mistag efficiency, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, $W+$ jets shape variation, $t \bar{t}$ generator, $t \bar{t}$ ISR/FSR, and unfolding. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. The JES $\eta$ intercalibration uncertainty has a sign switch from the first to the second bin. For the $tq$ generator $+$ parton shower uncertainty a sign switch is denoted with $\mp$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, $b-$JES, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $c-$tagging efficiency, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, lepton uncertainties, $W+$ jets shape variation, and $t \bar{t}$ generator. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. Sign switches within one uncertainty are denoted with $\mp$ and $\pm$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, $b-$JES, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, mistag efficiency, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, lepton uncertainties, $W+$ jets shape variation, and $t \bar{t}$ generator. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}|y(t)|}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. Sign switches within one uncertainty are denoted with $\mp$ and $\pm$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, b-JES, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $b-$tagging efficiency, $c-$tagging efficiency, mistag efficiency, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, lepton uncertainties, $W+$jets shape variation, $t \bar{t}$ generator, $t \bar{t}$ISR/FSR, and unfolding. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}|y(\bar t)|}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. Sign switches within one uncertainty are denoted with $\mp$ and $\pm$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content $:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, b-JES, jet energy resolution, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $b-$tagging efficiency, $c-$ tagging efficiency, mistag efficiency, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, lepton uncertainties, $W+$ jets shape variation, $t \bar{t}$ generator, $t \bar{t}$ ISR/FSR, and unfolding. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the differential cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the differential cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the differential cross section as a function of $|y(t)|$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the differential cross section as a function of $|y(\bar t)|$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the normalized differential cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the normalized differential cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the normalized differential cross section as a function of $|y(t)|$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the normalized differential cross section as a function of $|y(\bar t)|$.

Etmiss distribution for SRC1 after all selection requirements except those on Etmiss.

Etmiss distribution for SRC2 after all selection requirements except those on Etmiss.

Etmiss distribution for SRC3 after all selection requirements except those on Etmiss.

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

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

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where BR(stop --> top+neutralino)=50%.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where BR(stop --> top+neutralino)=50%.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where BR(stop --> top+neutralino)=100%.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where BR(stop --> top+neutralino)=100%.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where BR(stop --> top+neutralino)=75%.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where BR(stop --> top+neutralino)=75%.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where BR(stop --> top+neutralino)=50%.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where BR(stop --> top+neutralino)=50%.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where BR(stop --> top+neutralino)=25%.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where BR(stop --> top+neutralino)=25%.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where BR(stop --> top+neutralino)=0%.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where BR(stop --> top+neutralino)=0%.

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

Signal region (SR) combination providing the lowest expected CLs in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario.

Signal region (SR) combination providing the lowest expected CLs in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where BR(stop --> top+neutralino)=75%.

Signal region (SR) combination providing the lowest expected CLs in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where BR(stop --> top+neutralino)=50%.

Signal region (SR) combination providing the lowest expected CLs in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where BR(stop --> top+neutralino)=25%.

Signal region (SR) combination providing the lowest expected CLs in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where BR(stop --> top+neutralino)=0%.

Signal acceptance for the different signal regions (SR) in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario with both stops decaying to top+neutralino. The acceptance is defined in Appendix A of arXiv:1403.4853.

Signal efficiency for the different signal regions (SR) in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario with both stops decaying to top+neutralino.

Signal acceptance for the different signal regions (SR) in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario with both stops decaying to b+chargino. The acceptance is defined in Appendix A of arXiv:1403.4853.

Signal efficiency for the different signal regions (SR) in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario with both stops decaying to b+chargino.

Number of generated Monte Carlo events in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where both stops decay to top+neutralino.

Number of generated Monte Carlo events in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane in the stop pair production scenario where both stops decay to b+chargino.

Stop signal production cross sections in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal yield for SRA1 in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where both stops decay to top+neutralino. The uncertainty does not include Monte Carlo statistical uncertainties, nor theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal yield for SRA2 in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where both stops decay to top+neutralino. The uncertainty does not include Monte Carlo statistical uncertainties, nor theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal yield for SRA3 in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where both stops decay to top+neutralino. The uncertainty does not include Monte Carlo statistical uncertainties, nor theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal yield for SRA4 in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where both stops decay to top+neutralino. The uncertainty does not include Monte Carlo statistical uncertainties, nor theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal yield for SRB in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where both stops decay to top+neutralino. The uncertainty does not include Monte Carlo statistical uncertainties, nor theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal yield for SRC1 in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where both stops decay to top+neutralino. The uncertainty does not include Monte Carlo statistical uncertainties, nor theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal yield for SRC2 in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where both stops decay to top+neutralino. The uncertainty does not include Monte Carlo statistical uncertainties, nor theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal yield for SRC3 in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario where both stops decay to top+neutralino. The uncertainty does not include Monte Carlo statistical uncertainties, nor theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Observed and expected CLs in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the stop pair production scenario. The value for the best expected signal region combination is shown.

Missing ET distribution in SR2B for stop GMSB model (data+/-stat, bkg+/-(stat+syst), signal+/-stat), m(stop1)=500 GeV, m(neutralino1)=400 GeV.

Missing ET distribution in SR2C for stop GMSB model (data+/-stat, bkg+/-(stat+syst), signal+/-stat), m(stop1)=500 GeV, m(neutralino1)=400 GeV.

met_sr3a (data+/-stat, bkg+/-(stat+syst), signal+/-stat).

met_sr3b (data+/-stat, bkg+/-(stat+syst), signal+/-stat).

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL for stop2 grid.

Expected exclusion limits +1sigma at 95% CL for stop2 grid.

Expected exclusion limits -1sigma at 95% CL for stop2 grid.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for stop2 grid.

Observed exclusion limits +1sigma SUSY cross section uncertainty at 95% CL for stop2 grid.

Observed exclusion limits -1sigma SUSY cross section uncertainty at 95% CL for stop2 grid.

t2_350_n1_20_Observed.

t2_350_n1_20_Expected.

t2_500_n1_20_Observed.

t2_500_n1_20_Expected.

t2_500_n1_120_Observed.

t2_500_n1_120_Expected.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL for stop GMSB model.

Expected exclusion limits +1sigma at 95% CL for stop GMSB model.

Expected exclusion limits -1sigma at 95% CL for stop GMSB model.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for stop GMSB model.

Observed exclusion limits +1sigma SUSY cross section uncertainty at 95% CL for stop GMSB model.

Observed exclusion limits -1sigma SUSY cross section uncertainty at 95% CL for stop GMSB model.

met_3l2j (data+/-stat, bkg+/-(stat+syst), signal+/-stat).

met_3l3j (data+/-stat, bkg+/-(stat+syst), signal+/-stat).

The best expected signal region for stop2 model, where 1 and 2 mean SR3A and SR3B.

The best expected signal region for stop GMSB model, where 1 and 2 mean SR2A and SR2B.

The best expected signal region for stop2 mass 350 GeV and neutralino1 mass 20 GeV, where 1 and 2 mean SR3A and SR3B.

The best expected signal region for stop2 mass 500 GeV and neutralino1 mass 20 GeV, where 1 and 2 mean SR3A and SR3B.

The best expected signal region for stop2 mass 500 GeV and neutralino1 mass 120 GeV, where 1 and 2 mean SR3A and SR3B.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for stop2 grid.

Number of generated MC events for stop Natural GMSB model.

Cross section for stop Natural GMSB model.

xsec_stop2.

Ntot_stop2.

Acceptance of stop GMSB model for SR2A.

Efficiency of stop GMSB model for SR2A.

Number of expected signal events of stop GMSB model for SR2A.

Total systematic uncertainty of stop GMSB model for SR2A.

Observed CL_s of stop GMSB model for SR2A.

Expected CL_s of stop GMSB model for SR2A.

Acceptance of stop GMSB model for SR2B.

Efficiency of stop GMSB model for SR2B.

Number of expected signal events of stop GMSB model for SR2B.

Total systematic uncertainty of stop GMSB model for SR2B.

Observed CL_s of stop GMSB model for SR2B.

Expected CL_s of stop GMSB model for SR2B.

Acceptance of stop GMSB model for SR2C.

Efficiency of stop GMSB model for SR2C.

Number of expected signal events of stop GMSB model for SR2C.

Total systematic uncertainty of stop GMSB model for SR2C.

Observed CL_s of stop GMSB model for SR2C.

Expected CL_s of stop GMSB model for SR2C.

Nexp_SR3A.

RelUnc_SR3A.

Acc_SR3A.

Eff_SR3A.

CLsExp_SR3A.

CLs_SR3A.

Nexp_SR3B.

RelUnc_SR3B.

Acc_SR3B.

Eff_SR3B.

CLsExp_SR3B.

CLs_SR3B.

Distribution of mT2 for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on mT2 of the L100 selection, for DF events.

Distribution of mT2 for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on mT2 of the L110 selection, for SF events.

Distribution of mT2 for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on mT2 of the L110 selection, for DF events.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the (STOP1, CHARGINO1) mass plane for a fixed value of m(NEUTRALINO1) = 1 GeV.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the (STOP1, CHARGINO1) mass plane for a fixed value of m(NEUTRALINO1) = 1 GeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion minus 1 sigma contour in the (STOP1, CHARGINO1) mass plane for a fixed value of m(NEUTRALINO1) = 1 GeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the (STOP1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane for a fixed value of m(STOP1) - m(CHARGINO1) = 10 GeV.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the (STOP1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane for a fixed value of m(STOP1) - m(CHARGINO1) = 10 GeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion minus 1 sigma contour in the (STOP1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane for a fixed value of m(STOP1) - m(CHARGINO1) = 10 GeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the (CHARGINO1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane for a fixed value of m(STOP1) = 300 GeV.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the (CHARGINO1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane for a fixed value of m(STOP1) = 300 GeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion minus one sigma contour in the (CHARGINO1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane for a fixed value of m(STOP1) = 300 GeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the (STOP1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane of m(CHARGINO1) = 2 m(NEUTRALINO1).

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the (STOP1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane for m(CHARGINO1) = 2 m(NEUTRALINO1).

Observed 95% CL exclusion minus one sigma contour in the (STOP1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane for m(CHARGINO1) = 2 m(NEUTRALINO1).

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the (STOP1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the (STOP1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane.

Observed 95% CL exclusion minus one sigma contour in the (STOP1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the (STOP1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the (STOP1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane.

Observed 95% CL exclusion minus one sigma contour in the (STOP1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the (STOP1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane for a fixed value of m(CHARGINO1) = 106 GeV.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the (STOP1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane for a fixed value of m(CHARGINO1) = 106 GeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion minus one sigma contour in the (STOP1, NEUTRALINO1) mass plane for a fixed value of m(CHARGINO1) = 106 GeV.

Expected CLs values for Fig. 14.

Observed CLs values for Fig. 14.

Observed cross-section limits for Fig. 14.

Expected CLs values for Fig. 15.

Observed CLs values for Fig. 15.

Observed cross-section limits for Fig. 15.

Expected CLs values for Fig. 16.

Observed CLs values for Fig. 16.

Observed cross-section limits for Fig. 14.

Expected CLs values for Fig. 17.

Observed CLs values for Fig. 17.

Observed cross-section limits for Fig. 17.

Expected CLs values for Fig. 19.

Observed CLs values for Fig. 19.

Observed cross-section limits for Fig. 19.

Number of generated events for Fig. 16.

Acceptance of S1 for Fig. 16.

Efficiency of S1 for Fig. 16.

Total systematic uncertainty IN PCT on signal yields in S1 for Fig. 16.

Acceptance of S2 for Fig. 16.

Efficiency of S2 for Fig. 16.

Total systematic uncertainty IN PCT on signal yields in S2 for Fig. 16.

Acceptance of S3 for Fig. 16.

Efficiency of S3 for Fig. 16.

Total systematic uncertainty IN PCT on signal yields in S3 for Fig. 16.

Acceptance of S4 for Fig. 16.

Efficiency of S4 for Fig. 16.

Total systematic uncertainty IN PCT on signal yields in S4 for Fig. 16.

Acceptance of S5 for Fig. 16.

Efficiency of S5 for Fig. 16.

Total systematic uncertainty IN PCT on signal yields in S5 for Fig. 16.

Acceptance of S6 for Fig. 16.

Efficiency of S6 for Fig. 16.

Total systematic uncertainty IN PCT on signal yields in S6 for Fig. 16.

Acceptance of S7 for Fig. 16.

Efficiency of S7 for Fig. 16.

Total systematic uncertainty IN PCT on signal yields in S7 for Fig. 16.

Acceptance of H160 for Fig. 16.

Efficiency of H160 for Fig. 16.

Total systematic uncertainty IN PCT on signal yields in H160 for Fig. 16.

Observed cross-section limits for Fig. 20.

Observed cross-section limits for Fig. 20.

Expected cross-section limits for Fig. 20.

Total number of generated MC events for each point of the grid.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross-section, in pb, for each point of the grid in the different flavour channel.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross-section, in pb, for each point of the grid in the same flavour channel.

The best expected signal region chosen for each point of the grid in the different flavour channel.

The best expected signal region chosen for each point of the grid in the same flavour channel.

Observed CLs for each point of the grid in the different flavour channel.

Observed CLs for each point of the grid in the same flavour channel.

Expected CLs for each point of the grid in the different flavour channel.

Expected CLs for each point of the grid in the same flavour channel.

Signal acceptance for all the analysis cuts, except the BDTG cut, for each point of the grid in the different flavour channel.

Signal acceptance for all the analysis cuts, except the BDTG cut, for each point of the grid in the same flavour channel.

Signal efficiency, including the acceptance of the BDTG cut, for each point of the grid in the different flavour channel.

Signal efficiency, including the acceptance of the BDTG cut, for each point of the grid in the same flavour channel.

Total signal experimental systematic uncertainty for each point of the grid in the different flavour channel.

Signal efficiency, including the acceptance of the BDTG cut, for each point of the grid in the same flavour channel.

Number of simulated events passing various stages of the selection in the hadronic mT2 analysis for a signal sample with m(STOP1)=300 GeV, m(CHARGINO1) = 150 GeV and m(NEUTRALINO1) = 50 GeV, and with the top squark decaying as STOP1 --> CHARGINO1+ BOTTOM -> W(*)+NEUTRALINO1+ BOTTOM with unit probability. Event weights are applied to correct simulated events to data. "Isolation" includes the effects of tight ID for electrons and the isolation selection for both electrons and muons. "Cleaning cuts" refer to cuts applied to remove non-collision backgrounds and detector noise.

Number of simulated events passing various stages of the selection in the hadronic mT2 analysis for a signal sample with m(STOP1)=250 GeV, m(CHARGINO1) = 106 GeV and m(NEUTRALINO1) = 60 GeV, and with the top squark decaying as STOP1 --> CHARGINO1+ BOTTOM -> W(*)+NEUTRALINO1+ BOTTOM with unit probability. Event weights are applied to correct simulated events to data. "Isolation" includes the effects of tight ID for electrons and the isolation selection for both electrons and muons. "Cleaning cuts" refer to cuts applied to remove non-collision backgrounds and detector noise.

Number of simulated events passing various stages of the selection in the leptonic mT2 analysis for two signal samples with the top squark decaying as STOP1 --> CHARGINO1+ BOTTOM -> W(*)+NEUTRALINO1+BOTTOM with unit probability. Event weights are applied to correct simulated events to data. "Isolation" includes the effects of tight ID for electrons and the isolation selection for both electrons and muons. "Cleaning cuts" refer to cuts applied to remove non-collision backgrounds and detector noise.

Number of simulated events passing various stages of the selection in the leptonic mT2 analysis for a signal sample with m(STOP1)=180 GeV and m(NEUTRALINO1) = 60 GeV, and with the top squark decaying as STOP1 --> W + BOTTOM + NEUTRALINO1 with unit probability. Event weights are applied to correct simulated events to data. "Isolation" includes the effects of tight ID for electrons and the isolation selection for both electrons and muons. "Cleaning cuts" refer to cuts applied to remove non-collision backgrounds and detector noise.

Number of simulated events passing various stages of the selection in the in the MVA analysis for all signal samples used to train the BDTG and with the top squark decaying as STOP1 --> TOP + NEUTRALINO1 with unit probability. Event weights are applied to correct simulated events to data. "Isolation" includes the effects of tight ID for electrons and the isolation selection for both electrons and muons. "Cleaning cuts" refer to cuts applied to remove non-collision backgrounds and detector noise. The index i in category (Ci) is the one reported in table 3 for each signal point, SF and DF.

Integrated jet shape as a function of the radius r for the PT range 40-50 GeV.

Differential jet shape as a function of the radius r for the PT range 50-70 GeV.

Integrated jet shape as a function of the radius r for the PT range 50-70 GeV.

Differential jet shape as a function of the radius r for the PT range 70-100 GeV.

Integrated jet shape as a function of the radius r for the PT range 70-100 GeV.

Differential jet shape as a function of the radius r for the PT range 100-150 GeV.

Integrated jet shape as a function of the radius r for the PT range 100-150 GeV.

(1) Number of generated MC events for the spin 1/2 top partner signal grid (2) Relative Cross section uncertainties for the spin 1/2 top partner signal grid.

(1) Acceptance of the same flavour selection for the spin 1/2 top partner signal grid (2) Selection efficiency of the same flavour selection for the spin 1/2 top partner signal grid (3) Product of the acceptance and efficiency of the same flavour selection for the spin 1/2 top partner signal grid (4) Relative experimental uncertainties on the acceptance times efficiency of the same flavour selection for the spin 1/2 top partner signal grid.

(1) Acceptance of the different flavour selection for the spin 1/2 top partner signal grid (2) Selection efficiency of the different flavour selection for the spin 1/2 top partner signal grid (3) Product of the acceptance and efficiency of the different flavour selection for the spin 1/2 top partner signal grid (4) Relative experimental uncertainties on the acceptance times efficiency of the different flavour selection for the spin 1/2 top partner signal grid.

(1) Observed CLs values for the scalar top signal grid (2) Expected CLs values for the scalar top signal grid.

(1) Observed CLs values for the spin 1/2 top partner signal grid (2) Expected CLs values for the spin 1/2 top partner signal grid.

Cross section limits [pb] for the scalar top signal grid.

Cross section limits [pb] for the spin 1/2 top partner signal grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for stop grid as a function of the scalar top and neutralino masses.

Observed 95% CL limit for stop grid as a function of the scalar top and neutralino masses, varying signal cross section of +1sigma.

Observed 95% CL limit for stop grid as a function of the scalar top and neutralino masses, varying signal cross section of -1sigma.

Expected 95% CL limit for stop grid as a function of the scalar top and neutralino masses.

Expected 95% CL limit for stop grid as a function of the scalar top and neutralino masses, varying the uncertainty of +1sigma.

Expected 95% CL limit for stop grid as a function of the scalar top and neutralino masses, varying the uncertainty of -1sigma.

Observed 95% CL limit for top partner grid as a function of the top partner and neutralino masses.

Observed 95% CL limit for top partner grid as a function of the top partner and neutralino masses, varying signal cross section of +1sigma.

Observed 95% CL limit for top partner grid as a function of the top partner and neutralino masses, varying signal cross section of -1sigma.

Expected 95% CL limit for top partner grid as a function of the top partner and neutralino masses.

Expected 95% CL limit for top partner grid as a function of the top partner and neutralino masses, varying the uncertainty of +1sigma.

Expected 95% CL limit for top partner grid as a function of the top partner and neutralino masses, varying the uncertainty of -1sigma.