Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for all Stealth SUSY benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow cbs$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow lcb$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \tau\tau\nu$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for all Stealth SUSY benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow cbs$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow lcb$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \tau\tau\nu$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for all Stealth SUSY benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow cbs$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow lcb$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \tau\tau\nu$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for all Stealth SUSY benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow cbs$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow lcb$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \tau\tau\nu$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=5$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=5$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=5$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=15$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=15$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=15$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=40$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=40$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=40$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=250$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=500$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=500$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=500$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=800$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=800$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=800$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1200$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1200$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1200$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1500$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1500$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1500$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2000$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2000$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2000$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV and $m_{s}=50$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV and $m_{s}=50$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV and $m_{s}=100$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV and $m_{s}=50$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV and $m_{s}=150$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV and $m_{s}=50$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV and $m_{s}=150$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV and $m_{s}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=100$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=100$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=100$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \tau \tau \nu$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \tau \tau \nu$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \tau \tau \nu$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \tau \tau \nu$ channel with $m_{\chi}=100$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <br/><b>Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiency:</b> <br/><i>mPhi=100:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table1">Barrel</a> <i>mPhi=125:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table2">Barrel</a> <br/><i>mPhi=200:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table3">Barrel</a> <i>mPhi=400:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table4">Barrel</a> <br/><i>mPhi=600:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table5">Barrel</a> <i>mPhi=1000:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table6">Barrel</a> <br/><i>Stealth SUSY:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table7">Barrel</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis nubb:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table8">Barrel</a> <i>Baryogenesis cbs:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table9">Barrel</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis lcb:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table10">Barrel</a> <i>Baryogenesis tautaunu:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table11">Barrel</a> <br/><i>mPhi=100:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table12">Endcaps</a> <i>mPhi=125:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table13">Endcaps </a> <br/><i>mPhi=200:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table14">Endcaps</a> <i>mPhi=400:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table15">Endcaps</a> <br/><i>mPhi=600:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table16">Endcaps</a> <i>mPhi=1000:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table17">Endcaps</a> <br/><i>Stealth SUSY:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table18">Endcaps</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis nubb:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table19">Endcaps</a> <i>Baryogenesis cbs:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table20">Endcaps</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis lcb:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table21">Endcaps</a> <i>Baryogenesis tautaunu:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table22">Endcaps</a> <br/><b>MS vertex efficiency:</b> <br/><i>mPhi=100:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table23">Barrel</a> <i>mPhi=125:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table24">Barrel</a> <br/><i>mPhi=200:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table25">Barrel</a> <i>mPhi=400:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table26">Barrel</a> <br/><i>mPhi=600:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table27">Barrel</a> <i>mPhi=1000:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table28">Barrel</a> <br/><i>Stealth SUSY:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table29">Barrel</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis nubb:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table30">Barrel</a> <i>Baryogenesis cbs:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table31">Barrel</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis lcb:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table32">Barrel</a> <i>Baryogenesis tautaunu:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table33">Barrel</a> <br/><i>mPhi=100:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table34">Endcaps</a> <i>mPhi=125:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table35">Endcaps</a> <br/><i>mPhi=200:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table36">Endcaps</a> <i>mPhi=400:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table37">Endcaps</a> <br/><i>mPhi=600:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table38">Endcaps</a> <i>mPhi=1000:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table39">Endcaps</a> <br/><i>Stealth SUSY:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table40">Endcaps</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis nubb:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table41">Endcaps</a> <i>Baryogenesis cbs:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table42">Endcaps</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis lcb:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table43">Endcaps</a> <i>Baryogenesis tautaunu:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table44">Endcaps</a> <br/><b>Exclusion limits:</b> <br/><i>mPhi=125, mS=5:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table45">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table46">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table47">Combined</a> <br/><i>mPhi=125, mS=8:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table48">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table49">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table50">Combined</a> <br/><i>mPhi=125, mS=15:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table51">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table52">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table53">Combined</a> <br/><i>mPhi=125, mS=25:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table54">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table55">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table56">Combined</a> <br/><i>mPhi=125, mS=40:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table57">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table58">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table59">Combined</a> <br/><i>Stealth SUSY mG=250:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table60">2Vx</a> <br/><i>Stealth SUSY mG=500:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table61">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table62">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table63">Combined</a> <br/><i>Stealth SUSY mG=800:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table64">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table65">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table66">Combined</a> <br/><i>Stealth SUSY mG=1200:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table67">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table68">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table69">Combined</a> <br/><i>Stealth SUSY mG=1500:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table70">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table71">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table72">Combined</a> <br/><i>Stealth SUSY mG=2000:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table73">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table74">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table75">Combined</a> <br/><i>mPhi=100, mS=8:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table76">2Vx</a> <br/><i>mPhi=100, mS=25:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table77">2Vx</a> <br/><i>mPhi=200, mS=8:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table78">2Vx</a> <br/><i>mPhi=200, mS=25:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table79">2Vx</a> <br/><i>mPhi=200, mS=50:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table80">2Vx</a> <br/><i>mPhi=400, mS=50:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table81">2Vx</a> <br/><i>mPhi=400, mS=100:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table82">2Vx</a> <br/><i>mPhi=600, mS=50:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table83">2Vx</a> <br/><i>mPhi=600, mS=150:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table84">2Vx</a> <br/><i>mPhi=1000, mS=50:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table85">2Vx</a> <br/><i>mPhi=1000, mS=150:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table86">2Vx</a> <br/><i>mPhi=1000, mS=400:</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table87">2Vx</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis nubb, mChi=10</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table88">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table89">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table90">Combined</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis nubb, mChi=30</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table91">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table92">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table93">Combined</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis nubb, mChi=50</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table94">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table95">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table96">Combined</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis nubb, mChi=100</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table97">2Vx</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis cbs, mChi=10</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table98">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table99">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table100">Combined</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis cbs, mChi=30</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table101">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table102">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table103">Combined</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis cbs, mChi=50</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table104">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table105">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table106">Combined</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis cbs, mChi=100</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table107">2Vx</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis lcb, mChi=10</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table108">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table109">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table110">Combined</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis lcb, mChi=30</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table111">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table112">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table113">Combined</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis lcb, mChi=50</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table114">2Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table115">1Vx</a> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table116">Combined</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis lcb, mChi=100</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table117">2Vx</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis tatanu, mChi=10</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table118">2Vx</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis tatanu, mChi=30</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table119">2Vx</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis tatanu, mChi=50</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table120">2Vx</a> <br/><i>Baryogenesis tatanu, mChi=100</i> <a href="85748?version=1&table=Table121">2Vx</a>

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion, for the tested signal mass hypotheses in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane, for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion, for the tested signal mass hypotheses in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane, for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion, for the tested signal mass hypotheses in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane, for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on cross-section times branching ratio to the $ee$ final state for the Keung-Senjanovic process in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on cross-section times branching ratio to the $\mu\mu$ final state for the Keung-Senjanovic process in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on cross-section times branching ratio to the $\mu\mu$ final state for the Keung-Senjanovic process in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on cross-section times branching ratio to the $\mu\mu$ final state for the Keung-Senjanovic process in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Efficiencies times acceptance for signal region selection as a function of the signal $W_R$ and $N_R$ masses for the SS $e^{\pm}e^{\pm}$ channel.

Efficiencies times acceptance for signal region selection as a function of the signal $W_R$ and $N_R$ masses for the SS $\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$ channel.

Efficiencies times acceptance for signal region selection as a function of the signal $W_R$ and $N_R$ masses for the OS $e^{\pm}e^{\mp}$ channel.

Efficiencies times acceptance for signal region selection as a function of the signal $W_R$ and $N_R$ masses for the OS $\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}$ channel.

Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Yields of the expected background from the SM in the bins of the multibin SR of the $2\tau$ channel with all bins being simultaneously used to constrain the background prediction. Expectation is given with the scalings computed in the combined fit applied. Uncertainties are statistial plus systematrics. Only the subsamples contributing the respective region are considered.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ > 80 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

mT(tau_1) + mT(tau_2) in the multibin SR of the 2T channel. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.

Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of tanBeta and SUSY breaking mass scale Lambda.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ medium-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the compressed $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the medium-mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ in the compressed SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ > 1600 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ high-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the medium-mass $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the high-mass SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1100 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ multibin SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the GMSB SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1900 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ GMSB SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the top VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the $W$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the $Z$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

Best performing fit setups entering the final combination as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass. 'S' marks the simultaneous fit of the four simplified model single-bin SRs, 'M' denotes the simultaneous fit of the two $1\tau$ SRs and the $2\tau$ multibin SR.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.

Acceptance and efficiency for a representative set of pair-produced gluino signal samples. The mass of the gluino ($m(\tilde{g})$), its lifetime ($\tau(\tilde{g})$) and the mass of the neutralino ($m(\tilde{\chi}^{0})$) are given in the first three columns. The Pythia 6.4.27 signal samples shown in this table are not reweighted to match the transverse momentum of the gluino-gluino system as simulated by MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of events passing a loose set of fiducial requirements. The full simulation efficiency (Full sim. $\epsilon$) is defined as the ratio of the number of reconstructed events, as expected by the full ATLAS simulation, and the number of events passing the fiducial requirements. The parameterised simulation efficiency (Param. sim. $\epsilon$) is defined as the ratio of the number of events estimated using a set of parametrised efficiencies (see auxiliary Figures 9,10,11,12) and the number of events passing the fiducial requirements alone.

The reconstructed candidate track mass distributions for observed data, predicted background, and the expected contribution from two signal models in the metastable R-hadron signal region. The yellow band around the background estimation includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section as a function of mass for gluinos with lifetime $\tau = 10$ ns decaying into $q\bar{q}$ and a 100 GeV neutralino, with the observed limit shown as a solid black line. The predicted production cross-section values are shown in purple along with their uncertainty. The expected upper limit in the case of only background is shown by the dashed black line, with a green $\pm 1\sigma$ and a yellow $\pm 2\sigma$ band.

Observed 95% lower limits on the gluino mass in the gluino lifetime--mass plane. The excluded area is to the left of the curves.

Expected 95% lower limits on the gluino mass in the gluino lifetime--mass plane. The excluded area is to the left of the curves.

The relationship between generated and reconstructed mass for gluino $R$-hadrons. Above 1500 GeV, the reconstructed mass falls below the generated mass due to bias in the reconstructed momentum. The uncertainty on the reconstructed mass is dominated by momentum uncertainty. The black dots represent the reconstructed mass computed as the most probable value of a Gaussian fit function, with the error bars showing its statistical uncertainty, while the orange band is the full-width at half maximum of the reconstructed mass distribution.

The parameterised efficiency for events to pass metastable event selections (including trigger, E$_{T}^{miss}$, and event cleaning requirements) as a function of the true E$_{T}^{miss}$ in the system, which is calculated at generator level. Event-level efficiencies are evaluated for events which have at least true E$_{T}^{miss} > 50$ GeV. The metastable event efficiencies are evaluated for different radial regions depending on the smallest radial distance, R, at which an R-hadron decays in the detector.

The parameterised efficiency for particles to pass full track selections in the metastable signal region, as function of the particle’s $\beta$, in different bins of transverse momentum, $p_{T}$, and for different radial decay positions of the particle. The efficiency is evaluated for particles which pass a loose set of fiducial requirements at generator level.

The number of events in each CR, VR, and SR for the predicted background, for the expected contribution from the signal model normalised to $36.1$ fb$^{-1}$, and in the observed data. The predicted background includes the statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The uncertainty in the signal yield includes all systematic uncertainties except that in the theoretical cross-section.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on model-independent visible cross-sections, along with the observed $p0$ values, for the metastable signal region, as a function of different mass windows, for which the lower bound is shown. The upper boundary on the mass window is 5 TeV for all windows.

The reconstructed candidate track mass distributions for observed data, predicted background, and the expected contribution from two signal models in the stable R-hadron signal region. The yellow band around the background estimation includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section as a function of mass for stable gluino $R$-hadrons, with the observed limit shown as a solid black line. The predicted production cross-section values are shown in purple along with their uncertainty. The expected upper limit in the case of only background is shown by the dashed black line, with a green $\pm 1\sigma$ and a yellow $\pm 2\sigma$ band.

The parameterised efficiency for events to pass metastable event selections (including trigger, E$_{T}^{miss}$, and event cleaning requirements) as a function of the true E$_{T}^{miss}$ in the system, which is calculated at generator level. Event-level efficiencies are evaluated for events which have at least true E$_{T}^{miss} > 50$ GeV. The stable event efficiencies are evaluated for samples in which no R-hadron decays within the detector.

The parameterised efficiency for particles to pass full track selections in the metastable signal region, as function of the particle’s $\beta$, in different bins of transverse momentum, $p_{T}$, and for different radial decay positions of the particle. The efficiency is evaluated for particles which pass a loose set of fiducial requirements at generator level.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section as a function of mass for gluinos with lifetime $\tau = 1$ ns decaying into $q\bar{q}$ and a 100 GeV neutralino, with the observed limit shown as a solid black line. The predicted production cross-section values are shown in purple along with their uncertainty. The expected upper limit in the case of only background is shown by the dashed black line, with a green $\pm 1\sigma$ and a yellow $\pm 2\sigma$ band.

The parameterised efficiency for particles to pass full track selections in the metastable signal region, as function of the particle’s $\beta$, in different bins of transverse momentum, $p_{T}$, and for different radial decay positions of the particle. The efficiency is evaluated for particles which pass a loose set of fiducial requirements at generator level.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section as a function of mass for gluinos with lifetime $\tau = 3$ ns decaying into $q\bar{q}$ and a 100 GeV neutralino, with the observed limit shown as a solid black line. The predicted production cross-section values are shown in purple along with their uncertainty. The expected upper limit in the case of only background is shown by the dashed black line, with a green $\pm 1\sigma$ and a yellow $\pm 2\sigma$ band.

The parameterised efficiency for particles to pass full track selections in the metastable signal region, as function of the particle’s $\beta$, in different bins of transverse momentum, $p_{T}$, and for different radial decay positions of the particle. The efficiency is evaluated for particles which pass a loose set of fiducial requirements at generator level.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section as a function of mass for gluinos with lifetime $\tau = 30$ ns decaying into $q\bar{q}$ and a 100 GeV neutralino, with the observed limit shown as a solid black line. The predicted production cross-section values are shown in purple along with their uncertainty. The expected upper limit in the case of only background is shown by the dashed black line, with a green $\pm 1\sigma$ and a yellow $\pm 2\sigma$ band.

The parameterised efficiency for particles to pass full track selections in the metastable signal region, as function of the particle’s $\beta$, in different bins of transverse momentum, $p_{T}$, and for different radial decay positions of the particle. The efficiency is evaluated for particles which pass a loose set of fiducial requirements at generator level.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section as a function of mass for gluinos with lifetime $\tau = 50$ ns decaying into $q\bar{q}$ and a 100 GeV neutralino, with the observed limit shown as a solid black line. The predicted production cross-section values are shown in purple along with their uncertainty. The expected upper limit in the case of only background is shown by the dashed black line, with a green $\pm 1\sigma$ and a yellow $\pm 2\sigma$ band.

The parameterised efficiency for particles to pass full track selections in the metastable signal region, as function of the particle’s $\beta$, in different bins of transverse momentum, $p_{T}$. The stable efficiency is evaluated for samples which do not decay within the detector. The efficiency is evaluated for particles which pass a loose set of fiducial requirements at generator level.

For each gluino lifetime and mass in the signal samples, the lower boundary of the mass window in which at least $70\%$ of the reconstructed signal appears. The upper boundary for all mass windows is 5 TeV.

Expected and observed upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^{+}}$ in the hMSSM scenario of the MSSM. Limits are shown for $\tan\beta$ values in the range of 0.5-60, where predictions are available from both scenarios. The bands surrounding the expected limits show the 68% and 95% confidence intervals. The limits are based on the combination of the $\ell+$jets and $\ell\ell$ final states. The production cross-section of $t\bar{t}H$ and $tH$, as well as the branching ratios of the $H$, are fixed to their SM values at each point in the plane. Uncertainties on the predicted $H^{+}$ cross-sections or branching ratios are not considered.

Expected and observed upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^{+}}$ in the $m_h^{\mathrm{mod-}}$ scenario of the MSSM. Limits are shown for $\tan\beta$ values in the range of 0.5-60, where predictions are available from both scenarios. The bands surrounding the expected limits show the 68% and 95% confidence intervals. The limits are based on the combination of the $\ell+$jets and $\ell\ell$ final states. The production cross-section of $t\bar{t}H$ and $tH$, as well as the branching ratios of the $H$, are fixed to their SM values at each point in the plane. Uncertainties on the predicted $H^{+}$ cross-sections or branching ratios are not considered.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 900 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 950 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1000 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1050 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1100 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1150 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1200 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1300 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1400 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 800 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 900 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 950 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1000 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1050 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1100 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1150 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1200 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1300 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1400 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of a vector-like $T$ quark in the branching-ratio plane.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of a vector-like $B$ quark in the branching-ratio plane.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $T\bar T$ cross section as a function of $T$ mass under the assumption BR($T\to Wb$)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $B\bar B$ cross section as a function of $B$ mass under the assumption BR($T\to Zt$)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $B\bar B$ cross section as a function of $B$ mass under the assumption BR($B\to Wt$)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $B\bar B$ cross section as a function of $B$ mass under the assumption BR($B\to Zb$)=1.

Acceptance x efficiency versus resonance mass for both lephad and hadhad channels in the RS bulk model with k/MPl = 1

Acceptance x efficiency versus resonance mass for both lephad and hadhad channels in the RS bulk model with k/MPl = 2

Acceptance x efficiency versus resonance mass for both lephad and hadhad channels in the scalar model

Upper limits on the production cross-section times the HH to bbtautau branching ratio for non-resonant HH at 95% CLS and their interpretation as multiples of the SM prediction

Upper limits on the production cross-section times the HH to bbtautau branching ratio divided by the SM prediction for non-resonant HH at 95% CL

Post-fit expected number of signal and background events and observed number of data events after applying the selection criteria and requiring exactly 2 b-tagged jets and assuming a background-only hypothesis

Post-fit expected number of signal and background events and observed number of data events in the last two bins of the non-resonant BDT score distribution of the SM signal after applying the selection criteria and requiring exactly 2 b-tagged jets and assuming a background-only hypothesis

Mass hypotheses excluded at 95% CL as a function of the branching ratio, expected and observed limits for a vector-like T-quark.

Expected and observed limits on vector-like T5/3 pair production as a function of mass, assuming a branching ratio B(T5/3 -> Wt) = 100%.

Expected and observed limits on vector-like T5/3 single- plus pair-production as a function of mass and T5/3tW coupling assuming a branching ratio B(T5/3 -> Wt) = 100%.

Expected and observed limits on photon KK excitation pair-production as a function of the KK excitation mass of the photon in the 2UED/RPP model assuming a branching ratio B(A(1,1)-> t tbar)) = 100%.

Expected and observed limits on the cross-section of the four-top-quark production through a heavy scalar Higgs boson times the branching ratio for the Higgs boson to decay into t tbar as a function of the heavy scalar Higgs mass.

Expected and observed limits on the cross-section for prompt tt production as a function of the mass of the exotic FCNC mediator particle in a dark matter model.

Expected and observed limits on the cross-section for on-shell mediator subprocesses of the same-sign top-quark pair production as a function of the mass of the exotic FCNC mediator particle in a dark matter model.

Expected and observed limits on the cross-section for off-shell mediator subprocesses of the same-sign top-quark pair production as a function of the mass of the exotic FCNC mediator particle in a dark matter model.

Expected and observed constraints in the (gSM, mV) plane for the combined visible same-sign top-quark pair production for gSM=0.1

Expected and observed constraints in the (gSM, mV) plane for the combined visible same-sign top-quark pair production for gSM=0.5

Expected and observed constraints in the (gSM, mV) plane for the combined visible same-sign top-quark pair production for gSM=1.0

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-W/Z signal region with the merged event topology after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, low purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-W/Z signal region with the merged event topology after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, high purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-W/Z signal region with the merged event topology after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, low purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-W/Z signal region with the merged event topology after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-W/Z signal region with the resolved event topology after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-W/Z signal region with the resolved event topology after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-W/Z signal region with the resolved event topology after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 90 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, high purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 90 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, low purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 90 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, high purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 90 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, low purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 90 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 90 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 350 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 90 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 350 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 90 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 350 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

Expected exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the dark matter mediator particles (m_chi, m_Zp) for the combined mono-W and mono-Z search in the frame of the simplified model with the Dirac DM particles and couplings g_SM = 0.25 and g_DM = 1.

Observed exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the dark matter mediator particles (m_chi, m_Zp) for the combined mono-W and mono-Z search in the frame of the simplified model with the Dirac DM particles and couplings g_SM = 0.25 and g_DM = 1.

Exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the cross section as a function of Z' mass (mZp), for the mono-Z' dark fermion model, with the light dark sector scenario, with parameters g_SM = 0.1 and g_DM = 1.

Exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the cross section as a function of Z' mass (mZp), for the mono-Z' dark fermion model, with the heavy dark sector scenario, with parameters g_SM = 0.1 and g_DM = 1.

Exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the cross section as a function of Z' mass (mZp), for the mono-Z' dark Higgs model, with the light dark sector scenario, with parameters g_SM = 0.1 and g_DM = 1.

Exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the cross section as a function of Z' mass (mZp), for the mono-Z' dark Higgs model, with the heavy dark sector scenario, with parameters g_SM = 0.1 and g_DM = 1.

Exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the product of the couplings g_SM g_DM as a function of Z' mass (mZp), for the mono-Z' dark fermion model, with the light dark sector scenario, with parameter g_DM = 1.

Exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the product of the couplings g_SM g_DM as a function of Z' mass (mZp), for the mono-Z' dark fermion model, with the heavy dark sector scenario, with parameter g_DM = 1.

Exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the product of the couplings g_SM g_DM as a function of Z' mass (mZp), for the mono-Z' dark Higgs model, with the light dark sector scenario, with parameter g_DM = 1.

Exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the product of the couplings g_SM g_DM as a function of Z' mass (mZp), for the mono-Z' dark Higgs model, with the heavy dark sector scenario, with parameter g_DM = 1.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 80 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, low purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 80 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, low purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 80 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, high purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 80 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, high purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 80 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 80 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 80 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 80 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 100 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, low purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 100 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, low purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 100 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, high purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 100 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, high purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 100 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 100 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 100 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 100 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 110 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 110 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 110 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 120 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 120 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 120 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 130 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 130 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 130 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 140 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 140 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 140 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 150 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 150 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 150 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 160 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 160 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 160 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 170 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 170 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 170 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 180 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 180 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 180 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 190 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 190 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 190 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 200 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 200 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 200 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 250 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 250 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 250 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 300 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 300 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 300 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 400 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 400 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 400 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 450 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 450 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 450 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 500 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 500 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 500 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

Distribution of the reconstructed invariant mass of the $W^\prime$ boson candidate in the 4-jet 2-tag VR$_{t\bar{t}}$ electron validation region. Background templates are fit to data in each VR using the same statistical method as for the signal region except that the normalizations of $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets backgrounds are constrained to the post-fit rates obtained in the signal region. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Distribution of the reconstructed invariant mass of the $W^\prime$ boson candidate in the 4-jet 2-tag VR$_{t\bar{t}}$ muon validation region. Background templates are fit to data in each VR using the same statistical method as for the signal region except that the normalizations of $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets backgrounds are constrained to the post-fit rates obtained in the signal region. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed mass of the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ boson candidate in the 2-jet 1-tag signal region, for electron channel. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed mass of the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ boson candidate in the 2-jet 1-tag signal region, for muon channel. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed mass of the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ boson candidate in the 2-jet 2-tag signal region, for electron channel. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed mass of the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ boson candidate in the 2-jet 2-tag signal region, for muon channel. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed mass of the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ boson candidate in the 3-jet 1-tag signal region, for electron channel. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed mass of the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ boson candidate in the 3-jet 1-tag signal region, for muon channel. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed mass of the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ boson candidate in the 3-jet 2-tag signal region, for electron channel. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed mass of the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ boson candidate in the 3-jet 2-tag signal region, for muon channel. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ production cross section times branching fraction as a function of resonance mass, assuming $g^\prime/g=1$.

Observed and expected 95% CL limit on the ratio $g^\prime/g$, as a function of resonance mass, for right-handed $W^\prime$ coupling. The impact of the increased $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ width for coupling values of $g'/g>1$ on the acceptance and on kinematical distributions is taken into account.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ production cross section times branching fraction as a function of resonance mass for the combination of semileptonic and hadronic [Phys. Lett. B 781 (2018) 327] $W^\prime \rightarrow t\bar{b}$ searches, assuming $g^\prime/g=1$. The hadronic search covers a mass range between 1.0 and 5.0TeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of gluon-fusion initialted resonant production of the mass of the resonance times the branch ratio of X to HH and the BR of HH to gammagamma WW, without assuming the BR of H to gammagamma and H to WW.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the tan$\beta$ - $m_H$ plane shown in the context of the hMSSM, for the regions in which theoretical predictions are available (0.5$\leq\text{tan}\beta\leq60$).

Observed a95% CL exclusion contour in the tan$\beta$ - $m_H$ plane shown in the context of the $m_{H}^{mod-}$ scenario, for the regions in which theoretical predictions are available (0.5$\leq\text{tan}\beta\leq60$).

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the tan$\beta$ - $m_H$ plane shown in the context of the $m_{H}^{mod-}$ scenario, for the regions in which theoretical predictions are available (0.5$\leq\text{tan}\beta\leq60$).

Number of data events for the 2-tag category with the loose selection in bins of diphoton mass.

Number of data events for the 1-tag category with the tight selection in bins of diphoton mass.

Number of data events for the 2-tag category with the tight selection in bins of diphoton mass.

Number of data events for the 1-tag category with the loose selection in bins of four-body mass.

Number of data events for the 2-tag category with the loose selection in bins of four-body mass.

Number of data events for the 1-tag category with the tight selection in bins of four-body mass.

Number of data events for the 2-tag category with the tight selection in bins of four-body mass.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross-section of gluon-fusion initiated Higgs boson pair production as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross-section of gluon-fusion initiated resonant production of a Higgs boson pair as a function of the mass of the resonance, $m_X$.

The symmetric cumulant $sc_{2\,3}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The symmetric cumulant $sc_{2\,3}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The symmetric cumulant $sc_{2\,4}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The symmetric cumulant $sc_{2\,4}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 13 TeV

The symmetric cumulant $sc_{2\,4}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 13 TeV

The symmetric cumulant $sc_{2\,4}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The symmetric cumulant $sc_{2\,4}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The symmetric cumulant $sc_{2\,4}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The symmetric cumulant $sc_{2\,4}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The asymmetric cumulant $ac_{2}\{3\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 13 TeV

The asymmetric cumulant $ac_{2}\{3\}$results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 13 TeV

The asymmetric cumulant $ac_{2}\{3\}$results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The asymmetric cumulant $ac_{2}\{3\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The asymmetric cumulant $ac_{2}\{3\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The asymmetric cumulant $ac_{2}\{3\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The normalized symmetric cumulant $nsc_{2\,3}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 13 TeV

The normalized symmetric cumulant $nsc_{2\,4}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 13 TeV

The normalized asymmetric cumulant $nac_{2}\{3\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 13 TeV

The normalized symmetric cumulant $nsc_{2\,3}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 13 TeV

The normalized symmetric cumulant $nsc_{2\,4}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 13 TeV

The normalized asymmetric cumulant $nac_{2}\{3\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 13 TeV

The normalized symmetric cumulant $nsc_{2\,3}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The normalized symmetric cumulant $nsc_{2\,4}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The normalized asymmetric cumulant $nac_{2}\{3\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The normalized symmetric cumulant $nsc_{2\,3}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The normalized symmetric cumulant $nsc_{2\,4}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The normalized asymmetric cumulant $nac_{2}\{3\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The normalized symmetric cumulant $nsc_{2\,3}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The normalized symmetric cumulant $nsc_{2\,4}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The normalized asymmetric cumulant $nac_{2}\{3\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The normalized symmetric cumulant $nsc_{2\,3}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The normalized symmetric cumulant $nsc_{2\,4}\{4\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The normalized asymmetric cumulant $nac_{2}\{3\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The $v_{2}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 13 TeV

The $v_{3}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 13 TeV

The $v_{4}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 13 TeV

The $v_{2}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The $v_{3}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The $v_{4}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The $v_{2}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The $v_{3}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The $v_{4}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The $v_{2}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 13 TeV

The $v_{3}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 13 TeV

The $v_{4}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 13 TeV

The $v_{2}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The $v_{3}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The $v_{4}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The $v_{2}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The $v_{3}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The $v_{4}\{2\}$ results as a function of multiplicity ($N_{ch}$) in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

The symmetric cumulant $ac_{2}\{3\}$ in Pb+Pb from different methods

The symmetric cumulant $ac_{2}\{3\}$ in Pb+Pb from different methods

The symmetric cumulant $ac_{2}\{3\}$ in p+Pb from different methods

The symmetric cumulant $ac_{2}\{3\}$ in p+Pb from different methods

The symmetric cumulant $ac_{2}\{3\}$ in pp from different methods

The symmetric cumulant $ac_{2}\{3\}$ in pp from different methods

Exclusion limits on higgsino pair production divided by the theory cross-section.The results of the low-mass analysis are used below m(higgsino) = 300 GeV, while those of the high-mass analysis are used above. The figure shows the observed and expected 95% upper limits on the higgsino pair production cross-section as a function of m(higgsino).

Observed and expected 95% limits in the m(higgsino) vs BR(higgsino to higgs+gravitino) plane. The regions above the lines are excluded by the analyses.

The observed and expected 95% upper limits on the total pair production cross section for degenerate higgsinos as a function of m(higgsino) for the high-mass search. Only the high-mass analysis results are used in this figure.

The observed and expected 95% upper limits on the total pair production cross section for degenerate higgsinos as a function of m(higgsino) for the high-mass search, divided by the theory cross section. Only the high-mass analysis results are used in this figure.

The observed and expected 95% upper limits on the total pair production cross section for degenerate higgsinos as a function of m(higgsino) for the low-mass search. Only the low-mass analysis results are used in this figure.

The observed and expected 95% upper limits on the total pair production cross section for degenerate higgsinos as a function of m(higgsino) for the low-mass search, divided by the theory cross section. Only the low-mass analysis results are used in this figure.

Particle-level acceptance for the low-mass discovery signal regions low-SR-MET0-meff440 and low-SR-MET150-meff440, shown as a function of higgsino mass. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events passing the particle-level event selection that emulates the detector-level selection. The acceptance calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons that subsequently both decay to b-quarks.

The experimental efficiency of the low-mass analysis, for the two discovery signal regions low-SR-MET0-meff440 and low-SR-MET150-meff440, as a function of higgsino mass. The experimental efficiency is defined as the number of events passing the detector-level event selection divided by the number of events passing the event selection for a perfect detector. The denominator is obtained by implementing particle-level event selection that emulate the detector-level selection. Such particle-level selection is not applied on the numerator.

Particle-level acceptance for the high-mass discovery signal regions SR-4b-meff1-A-disc and SR-3b-meff3-A, shown as a function of higgsino mass. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events passing the particle-level event selection that emulates the detector-level selection. The acceptance calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons that subsequently both decay to b-quarks.

The experimental efficiency of the high-mass analysis, for the two discovery signal regions SR-4b-meff1-A-disc and SR-3b-meff3-A, as a function of higgsino mass. The experimental efficiency is defined as the number of events passing the detector-level event selection divided by the number of events passing the event selection for a perfect detector. The denominator is obtained by implementing particle-level event selection that emulate the detector-level selection. Such particle-level selection is not applied on the numerator.

Example cutflow for SR-3b-meff3-A.

Example cutflow for SR-4b-meff1-A-disc.

Cutflow for low-mass analysis for each signal mass point.

Signal region acceptance for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_High. The acceptance is with respect to all possible $W/Z$ decays.

Signal region efficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_High.

Signal region acceptanceXefficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_High.

Signal region efficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_Int.

Signal region acceptanceXefficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_Int.

Distributions of kinematic variables in the signal regions for the $2\ell$ channels after applying all selection requirements. The histograms show the post-fit background predictions. The last bin includes the overflow. The distribution for $\textrm{min}(H^{\textrm{P}_{\textrm{a}}}_{1,1},H^{\textrm{P}_{\textrm{b}}}_{1,1})/\textrm{min}(H^{\textrm{P}_{\textrm{a}}}_{2,1},H^{\textrm{P}_{\textrm{b}}}_{2,1})$ in SR$2\ell$_Low is plotted. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model, normalized to the NLO+NLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, is also shown for comparison.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the masses of C1/N2 and N1 from the analysis of 36.1fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data obtained from the the $3\ell$ search, assuming 100% branching ratio of the sparticles to decay to SM $W/Z$ bosons and LSP.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the masses of C1/N2 and N1 from the analysis of 36.1fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data obtained from the the $3\ell$ search, assuming 100% branching ratio of the sparticles to decay to SM $W/Z$ bosons and LSP.

Signal region acceptance for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_Int. The acceptance is with respect to all possible $W/Z$ decays.

Signal region acceptance for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_Low. The acceptance is with respect to all possible $W/Z$ decays.

Signal region efficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_Low.

Signal region acceptanceXefficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_Low.

Distributions of kinematic variables in the signal regions for the $2\ell$ channels after applying all selection requirements. The histograms show the post-fit background predictions. The last bin includes the overflow. The distribution for $p_{\mathrm{T\ ISR}}^{~\textrm{CM}}$ in SR2$\ell$_ISR is plotted. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model, normalized to the NLO+NLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, is also shown for comparison.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the masses of C1/N2 and N1 from the analysis of 36.1fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data obtained from the statistical combination of the $2\ell$ and 3$\ell$ search channels, assuming 100\% branching ratio of the sparticles to decay to SM $W/Z$ bosons and LSP.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the masses of C1/N2 and N1 from the analysis of 36.1fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data obtained from the statistical combination of the $2\ell$ and 3$\ell$ search channels, assuming 100% branching ratio of the sparticles to decay to SM $W/Z$ bosons and LSP.

Signal region acceptance for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_ISR. The acceptance is with respect to all possible $W/Z$ decays.

Signal region efficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_ISR.

Signal region acceptanceXefficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_ISR.

Distributions of kinematic variables in the signal regions for the $2\ell$ channels after applying all selection requirements. The histograms show the post-fit background predictions. The last bin includes the overflow. The distribution for $R_{\textrm{ISR}}$ in SR$2\ell$_ISR is plotted. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model, normalized to the NLO+NLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, is also shown for comparison.

Signal region acceptance for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_High. The acceptance is with respect to all possible $W/Z$ decays.

Signal region efficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_High.

Signal region acceptanceXefficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_High.

Distributions of kinematic variables in the signal regions for the $3\ell$ channels after applying all selection requirements. The histograms show the post-fit background predictions. The last bin includes the overflow. The distribution for $H_{3,1}^{\textrm{PP}}$ in SR$3\ell$_Low is plotted. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model, normalized to the NLO+NLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, is also shown for comparison.

Signal region acceptanceXefficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_Int.

Distributions of kinematic variables in the signal regions for the $3\ell$ channels after applying all selection requirements. The histograms show the post-fit background predictions. The last bin includes the overflow. The distribution of $p_{\textrm{T}}^{\ell_{1}}$ in SR$3\ell$_Low is plotted. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model, normalized to the NLO+NLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, is also shown for comparison.

Signal region acceptance for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_Int. The acceptance is with respect to all possible $W/Z$ decays.

Signal region efficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_Int.

Signal region acceptance for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_Low. The acceptance is with respect to all possible $W/Z$ decays.

Signal region efficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_Low.

Signal region acceptanceXefficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_Low.

Distributions of kinematic variables in the signal regions for the $3\ell$ channels after applying all selection requirements. The histograms show the post-fit background predictions. The last bin includes the overflow. The distribution of $p_{\mathrm{T\ ISR}}^{~\textrm{CM}}$ in SR$3\ell$_ISR is plotted. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model, normalized to the NLO+NLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, is also shown for comparison.

Signal region acceptance for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_ISR. The acceptance is with respect to all possible $W/Z$ decays.

Signal region efficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_ISR.

Signal region acceptanceXefficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_ISR.

Distributions of kinematic variables in the signal regions for the $3\ell$ channels after applying all selection requirements. The histograms show the post-fit background predictions. The last bin includes the overflow. The distribution of $R_{\textrm{ISR}}$ in SR$3\ell$_ISR is plotted. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model, normalized to the NLO+NLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, is also shown for comparison.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross-section of C1/N2 from the analysis of 36.1fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data obtained from the 2$\ell$ search, assuming 100% branching ratio of the sparticles to decay to SM $W/Z$ bosons and N1.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross-section of C1/N2 from the analysis of 36.1fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data obtained from the 3$\ell$ search, assuming 100% branching ratio of the sparticles to decay to SM $W/Z$ bosons and N1.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross-section of C1/N2 from the analysis of 36.1fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data obtained from the statistical combination of 2 and 3$\ell$ searches, assuming 100% branching ratio of the sparticles to decay to SM $W/Z$ bosons and N1.

Signal cutflow for SR2L_High and m[C1/N2,N1] = [500,0] GeV. 5000 events were generated for this point. The unweighted number of events correspond to the number of selected MC events in the produced sample, while the weighted yield is normalized to the luminosity of the data.

Signal cutflow for SR2L_ISR and m[C1/N2,N1] = [200,100] GeV. 20000 events were generated for this point. The unweighted number of events correspond to the number of selected MC events in the produced sample, while the weighted yield is normalized to the luminosity of the data.

Signal cutflow for SR2L_Int and m[C1/N2,N1] = [400,200] GeV. 10000 events were generated for this point. The unweighted number of events correspond to the number of selected MC events in the produced sample, while the weighted yield is normalized to the luminosity of the data.

Signal cutflow for SR2L_Low and m[C1/N2,N1] = [200,100] GeV. 20000 events were generated for this point. The unweighted number of events correspond to the number of selected MC events in the produced sample, while the weighted yield is normalized to the luminosity of the data.

Signal cutflow for SR3L_High and m[C1/N2,N1] = [500,0] GeV. 5000 events were generated for this point. The unweighted number of events correspond to the number of selected MC events in the produced sample, while the weighted yield is normalized to the luminosity of the data.

Signal cutflow for SR3L_ISR and m[C1/N2,N1] = [200,100] GeV. 20000 events were generated for this point. The unweighted number of events correspond to the number of selected MC events in the produced sample, while the weighted yield is normalized to the luminosity of the data.

Signal cutflow for SR3L_Int and m[C1/N2,N1] = [400,200] GeV. 10000 events were generated for this point. The unweighted number of events correspond to the number of selected MC events in the produced sample, while the weighted yield is normalized to the luminosity of the data.

Signal cutflow for SR3L_Low and m[C1/N2,N1] = [200,100] GeV. 20000 events were generated for this point. The unweighted number of events correspond to the number of selected MC events in the produced sample, while the weighted yield is normalized to the luminosity of the data.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the BB cross section as a function of B quark mass in the SU(2) singlet scenario.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of the B quark in the branching ratio plane of BR(B->Wt) versus BR(B->Hb).

Observed and expected distributions of the $WZ$ invariant mass in the q$\bar{\mathrm q}$ category after applying all selection cuts. Background contributions are obtained from background-only likelihood fit to the data.

Observed and expected distributions of the $WZ$ invariant mass in the $VBF$ category after applying all selection cuts. Background contributions are obtained from background-only likelihood fit to the data.

Observed and expected 95% C.L. upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($W'\to W^\pm Z$) for the q$\bar{\mathrm q}$ production of a $W'$ boson in the HVT model as a function of its mass. The $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ uncertainty in the expected limits are given. Limits are calculated in the asymptotic approximation below 900 GeV and are obtained from pseudo-experiments above that.

Observed and expected 95% C.L. upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($W'\to W^\pm Z$) for the $VBF$ production of a $W'$ boson in the HVT model as a function of its mass. The $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ uncertainty are given in the expected limits. Limits are calculated in the asymptotic approximation below 700 GeV and are obtained from pseudo-experiments above that.

Observed and expected 95% C.L. upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($H_5^\pm\to W^\pm Z$) of the Georgi-Machacek Model as a function of $m_{H_5^\pm}$. The $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ uncertainty in the expected limits are given. Limits are calculated in the asymptotic approximation below 700 GeV and are obtained from pseudo-experiments above that.

Observed and expected 95% C.L. upper limits on the parameter $\sin(\theta_H)$ of the Georgi-Machacek Model as a function of $m_{H_5^\pm}$. The $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ uncertainty are given in the expected limits. Limits are calculated in the asymptotic approximation below 700 GeV and are obtained from pseudo-experiments above that.

Cutflow table for three benchmark signal points from the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino, with m(gluino) = 1395 GeV and m(neutralino2) = 505 GeV, m(gluino) = 920 GeV and m(neutralino2) = 230 GeV and m(gluino) = 940 GeV and m(neutralino2) = 660 GeV, in the on-$Z$ $m_{ll}$ bins of SR-medium and SR-high for the electron and muon channels separately. The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Acceptance and efficiency in the on-Z bin for SR-medium for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.

The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the on-Z $m_{ll}$ windows of SR-medium and SR-high, SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.

Signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions, with the bin boundaries considered for the interpretation, in SR-med. All statistical and systematic uncertainties of the expected background are included in the hatched band. An example signal from the slepton model with m(gluino) = 1600 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 900 GeV, and from an on-$Z$ model with m(gluino) = 1640 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 1160 GeV, is overlaid.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.

Acceptance and efficiency in the on-Z bin for SR-high for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.

The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the on-Z $m_{ll}$ windows of SR-medium and SR-high, SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.

Cutflow table for a signal point from the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino, with m(gluino) = 1000 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 800 GeV, m(gluino) = 1200 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 500 GeV and m(gluino) = 1400 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 100 GeV, in all m_{ll}$ bins of SR-low, SR-medium and SR-high for the electron and muon channels separately. The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions, with the bin boundaries considered for the interpretation, in SR-high. All statistical and systematic uncertainties of the expected background are included in the hatched band. An example signal from the slepton model with m(gluino) = 1800 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 500 GeV, and from an on-$Z$ model with m(gluino) = 1650 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 550 GeV, is overlaid.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson and the lightest neutralino.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson and the lightest neutralino.