The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the VRSS for the $e\tau$ channel for events with 3-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $e\tau$ channel for events with 1-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $e\tau$ channel for events with 3-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $\mu\tau$ channel for events with 1-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $\mu\tau$ channel for events with 3-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

Observed and expected upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(Z\rightarrow\ell\tau)$ at 95% confidence level.

Data from Figure 11a

Model-independent per-channel efficiencies calculated in the fiducial volume of the High Mass channel for the $2e2\mu$ final state.

Model-independent per-channel efficiencies calculated in the fiducial volume of the High Mass channel for the $4e$ final state.

Model-dependent per-channel fiducial region acceptances for the $H\to aa\to 4\mu$ process. The regions of 2 GeV to 4.4 GeV, and 8 GeV to 12 GeV are each excluded by the quarkonia veto. Both, the Low Mass and the High Mass channel, include $m_X = $ 15 GeV at their signal region's edges, hence the dual entry for $m_X = $ 15 GeV.

Model-dependent per-channel fiducial region acceptances for the $H\to Z_dZ_d\to 4\ell$ process. The regions of 2 GeV to 4.4 GeV, and 8 GeV to 12 GeV are each excluded by the quarkonia veto. Both, the Low Mass and the High Mass channel, include $m_X = $ 15 GeV at their signal region's edges, hence the dual entry for $m_X = $ 15 GeV.

Model-dependent per-channel fiducial region acceptances for the $H\to Z_dZ_d\to 2e2\mu$ process.

Model-dependent per-channel fiducial region acceptances for the $H\to Z_dZ_d\to 4e$ process.

Upper limits at 95% CL on fiducial cross-sections for the $H\rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ process. The step change at $m_X$ = 15 GeV is due to the change in efficiency caused by the change in fiducial phase-space definition. The regions of 2 GeV to 4.4 GeV, and 8 GeV to 12 GeV are each excluded by the quarkonia veto.

Upper limits at 95% CL on fiducial cross-sections for the $H\rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4e$ process.

Upper limits at 95% CL on fiducial cross-sections for the $H\rightarrow XX \rightarrow 2e2\mu$ process.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL for the cross section of the $H\to Z_dZ_d\to 4\ell$ process, assuming SM Higgs boson production via the gluon-gluon fusion process. All final states are combined.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL for the cross sections of the $H\to Z_dZ_d\to 4\mu$ processes, assuming SM Higgs boson production via the gluon-gluon fusion process. The regions of 2 GeV to 4.4 GeV, and 8 GeV to 12 GeV are each excluded by the quarkonia veto. The step changes at $m_{Z_d}= 15 \,\text{GeV}$ are due to the change in selection from the Low Mass to the High Mass analysis.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL for the cross sections of the $H\to aa\to 4\mu$ processes, assuming SM Higgs boson production via the gluon-gluon fusion process. The regions of 2 GeV to 4.4 GeV, and 8 GeV to 12 GeV are each excluded by the quarkonia veto. The step changes at $m_{Z_d}= 15 \,\text{GeV}$ are due to the change in selection from the Low Mass to the High Mass analysis.

Model-independent efficiencies for the $H\to ZX$ process for the $4\mu$ and $2e2\mu$ final states combined calculated in the $ZX$ fiducial volume.

Model-independent efficiencies for the $H\to ZX$ process for the $4\mu$, $2e2\mu$, $2\mu 2e$, and $4e$ final states combined calculated in the $ZX$ fiducial volume.

Model-independent efficiencies for the $H\to ZX$ process for the $2\mu 2e$, and $4e$ final states combined calculated in the $ZX$ fiducial volume.

Model-dependent per-channel fiducial region acceptances for the $H\to ZZ_d\to 4\ell$ process for the $4\mu$, and $2e2\mu$ final states.

Model-dependent per-channel fiducial region acceptances for the $H\to ZZ_d\to 4\ell$ process for the $4\mu$, $2e2\mu$, $2\mu 2e$, and $4e$ final states.

Model-dependent per-channel fiducial region acceptances for the $H\to ZZ_d\to 4\ell$ process for the $2\mu 2e$, and $4e$ final states.

Per-channel upper limit at 95% CL on the fiducial cross-section for the $H\rightarrow ZX \to 2\ell2e$ process.

Per-channel upper limit at 95% CL on the fiducial cross-section for the $H\rightarrow ZX \to 2\ell2\mu$ process.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL for the cross sections of the $H\to ZZ_d\to 4\ell$ process, assuming SM Higgs~boson production via the gluon-gluon fusion process.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL for the cross sections of the $H\to Za\to 2\ell2\mu$ process, assuming SM Higgs~boson production via the gluon-gluon fusion process.

95% CL upper limits on the cross section times the model-dependent branching ratio divided by the SM Higgs boson production cross section for the $H\rightarrow Z_dZ_d$ process for the benchmark HAHM. The regions of 2 GeV to 4.4 GeV, and 8 GeV to 12 GeV are each excluded by the quarkonia veto. The step changes at $m_{Z_d}= 15 \,\text{GeV}$ are due to the change in selection from the Low Mass to the High Mass analysis.

95% CL upper limits on the cross section times the model-dependent branching ratio divided by the SM Higgs boson production cross section for the $H\rightarrow aa$ process for the benchmark 2HDM+S model. The regions of 2 GeV to 4.4 GeV, and 8 GeV to 12 GeV are each excluded by the quarkonia veto. The step changes at $m_{Z_d}= 15 \,\text{GeV}$ are due to the change in selection from the Low Mass to the High Mass analysis.

Upper limit at 95% CL on the effective Higgs mixing parameter $\kappa^\prime=\kappa \, m_H^2 / |m_H^2-m_S^2|$. The regions of 2 GeV to 4.4 GeV, and 8 GeV to 12 GeV are each excluded by the quarkonia veto. The step changes at $m_{Z_d}= 15 \,\text{GeV}$ are due to the change in selection from the Low Mass to the High Mass analysis.

Upper limit at 95% CL on the $Z_d$ kinetic mixing parameter $\epsilon$, assuming the SM Higgs boson production cross section.

Upper limit at 95% CL on the $Z$-$Z_d$ mass mixing parameter $\delta^2 \times \textrm{BR}(Z_d\to \ell\ell)$, assuming the SM Higgs boson production cross section.

The observed exclusion contours as a function of (m(med), m($\chi$)), with Vector mediator)

The expected exclusion contours as a function of (m(a), tan($\beta$)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.35)

The observed exclusion contours as a function of (m(a), tan($\beta$)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.35)

The expected exclusion contours as a function of (m(a), tan($\beta$)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.7)

The observed exclusion contours as a function of (m(a), tan($\beta$)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.7)

The expected exclusion contours as a function of (m(H), tan($\beta$)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.35)

The observed exclusion contours as a function of (m(H), tan($\beta$)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.35)

The expected exclusion contours as a function of (m(H), tan($\beta$)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.7)

The observed exclusion contours as a function of (m(H), tan($\beta$)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.7)

The expected exclusion contours as a function of (m(a), m(H)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.35)

The observed exclusion contours as a function of (m(a), m(H)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.35)

The expected exclusion contours as a function of (m(a), m(H)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.7)

The observed exclusion contours as a function of (m(a), m(H)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.7)

Expected lower limit on signal strength at 95% CL as a function of sin($\theta$), with m(a) = 200 GeV, m(H) = 600 GeV.

Observed lower limit on signal strength at 95% CL as a function of sin($\theta$), with m(a) = 200 GeV, m(H) = 600 GeV.

Expected lower limit on signal strength at 95% CL as a function of sin($\theta$), with m(a) = 350 GeV, m(H) = 1000 GeV.

Observed lower limit on signal strength at 95% CL as a function of sin($\theta$), with m(a) = 350 GeV, m(H) = 1000 GeV.

Observed lower limit on WIMP-nucleon cross section at 90% CL as a function of m(WIMP), assuming Higgs-portal scenario with Scalar WIMP.

Observed lower limit on WIMP-nucleon cross section at 90% CL as a function of m(WIMP), assuming Higgs-portal scenario with Majorana WIMP.

Observed lower limit on the spin-dependent WIMP–proton scattering cross-section.

Observed lower limit on the spin-independent WIMP–nucleon scattering cross-section.

Cutflow of unweighted and weighted events of $ZH$ signals in the electron channel.

Cutflow of unweighted and weighted events of $ZH$ signals in the muon channel.

Cutflow of unweighted and weighted events of DM signals (simplified DM axial-vector with m(med) = 900 GeV and m($\chi$) = 40 GeV, 2HDM+$a$ signal with m(A) = 600 GeV, m(a) = 400 GeV, tan($\beta$) = 1.0 and m($\chi$) = 10 GeV) in the electron channel.

Cutflow of unweighted and weighted events of DM signals (simplified DM axial-vector with m(med) = 900 GeV and m($\chi$) = 40 GeV, 2HDM+$a$ signal with m(A) = 600 GeV, m(a) = 400 GeV, tan($\beta$) = 1.0 and m($\chi$) = 10 GeV) in the muon channel.

The efficiency for simulated VBF events to pass each analysis cut.

The efficiency for simulated VH events to pass each analysis cut.

The efficiency for simulated ttH events to pass each analysis cut.

The fractional contribution of each production mode to a given analysis region around the Higgs boson peak, defined as 105 < mJ < 140 GeV. The fraction is given with respect to the total signal yield in the analysis region in question.

Signal acceptance times efficiency within the fiducial volume used in the fiducial region.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for the STXS volumes in the differential measurement. Along with the pTH requirements shown, |yH | < 2 is required. For events with pTH < 300 GeV, the acceptance times efficiency is less than 0.1 × 10−2.

Event yields and associated uncertainties after the global likelihood fit in the pT(H) > 450 GeV fiducial region. The total background yield can differ from the sum of the individual components due to rounding.

Event yields and associated uncertainties after the global likelihood fit of the differential regions. The total background yield can differ from the sum of the individual components due to rounding. The five STXS volumes are labeled pT0–pT4 corresponding to pTH < 300 GeV, 300 – 450 GeV, 450 – 650 GeV, 650 – 1000 GeV, and > 1000 GeV, respectively. The pT0 event yield is constrained to its SM value within the theoretical and experimental uncertainties and free parameters act independently on the remaining four volumes.

Distributions of $s_{\text{T}}$ in the single-tau one-bin SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $m_{\text{T}}(\tau)$ in the single-tau one-bin SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\Sigma m_{\text{T}}(b_{1,2})$ in the single-tau $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$-binned SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$ in the single-tau $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$-binned SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Observed event yields in data ('Observed') and expected event yields for SM background processes obtained from the background-only fit ('Total bkg.' and rows below) in the signal regions of the di-tau and single-tau channels. The quoted uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties and are truncated at zero yield. By construction, no $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) events can pass the selections in the single-tau channel. As the individual uncertainties are correlated, they do not add in quadrature to equal the total background uncertainty.

From left to right: upper limits at the 95% confidence level (CL) on the visible cross section ($\sigma_\text{vis}$) and on the number of signal events ($S_{\text{obs}}^{95}$). The third column ($S_{\text{exp}}^{95}$) shows the upper limit at the 95% CL on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and $\pm 1\,\sigma$ excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis ($\text{CL}_{b}$), the discovery $p$-value ($p(s=0)$) and the significance ($Z$). In the di-tau SR, where fewer events are observed than predicted by the fitted background estimate, the $p$-value is capped at 0.5.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for the minimal-coupling scenario. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for the minimal-coupling scenario. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for vector leptoquarks with additional gauge couplings. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for vector leptoquarks with additional gauge couplings. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the stop-stau signal model as a function of the masses of the top squark $m(\tilde{t}_{1})$ and of the tau slepton $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1})$. Expected and observed limits are shown for the present search in comparison to observed limits from previous ATLAS analyses based on data from Run-1 of the LHC at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV [Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016)] and on a partial dataset from Run 2 at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV [Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 032008]. The green band indicates the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments.

Exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the stop-stau signal model as a function of the masses of the top squark $m(\tilde{t}_{1})$ and of the tau slepton $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1})$. Expected and observed limits are shown for the present search in comparison to observed limits from previous ATLAS analyses based on data from Run-1 of the LHC at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV [Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016)] and on a partial dataset from Run 2 at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV [Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 032008]. The green band indicates the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ with charge $+2/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ with charge $+2/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ with charge $-1/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ with charge $-1/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the stop-stau signal model.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model with up-type leptoquarks.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model with down-type leptoquarks.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model with minimal coupling (MC).

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model with additional gauge couplings (YM).

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$ and SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$ and SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$ and SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR0$_{\mathrm{breq}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR1$_{\mathrm{breq}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR2$_{\mathrm{breq}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ bserved 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the wino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the wino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the slepton/sneutrino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the slepton/sneutrino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the gluino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the gluino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the higgsino GGM models. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Best expected SR for the wino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the wino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the slepton/sneutrino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the slepton/sneutrino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the gluino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the gluino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the higgsino GGM models. A value of 6 corresponds to SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 7 corresponds to SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 8 corresponds to SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}_{\mathrm{bveto}}$, and 9 corresponds to SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}_{\mathrm{bveto}}$.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR5L. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the taus leptons in distribution in SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light taus in distribution in SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with four light leptons and a Z veto. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with four light leptons and one Z candidate. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with four light leptons and two Z candidates. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with exactly five light leptons. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with three light leptons and one tau and a Z veto. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with three light leptons and one tau and one Z candidate. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with two light leptons and two taus and a Z veto. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with two light leptons and two taus and one Z candidate. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

Cutflow event yields in regions SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, SR0$_{\mathrm{breq}}$, and SR5L for RPV models with the $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ coupling. All yields correspond to weighted events, so that effects from lepton reconstruction efficiencies, trigger corrections, pileup reweighting, etc., are included. They are normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data sample, $\int L dt = 139\,\mbox{fb\(^{-1}\)}$. The preliminary event reduction is a centralized stage where at least two electrons/muons with uncalibrated $p_{\mathrm{T}} >$ 9 GeV are required.

Cutflow event yields in regions SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and SR1$_{\mathrm{breq}}$ for RPV models with the $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ coupling. All yields correspond to weighted events, so that effects from lepton reconstruction efficiencies, trigger corrections, pileup reweighting, etc., are included. They are normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data sample, $\int L dt = 139\,\mbox{fb\(^{-1}\)}$. The preliminary event reduction is a centralized stage where at least two electrons/muons with uncalibrated $p_{\mathrm{T}} >$ 9 GeV are required.

Cutflow event yields in regions SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and SR2$_{\mathrm{breq}}$ for RPV models with the $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ coupling. All yields correspond to weighted events, so that effects from lepton reconstruction efficiencies, trigger corrections, pileup reweighting, etc., are included. They are normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data sample, $\int L dt = 139\,\mbox{fb\(^{-1}\)}$. The preliminary event reduction is a centralized stage where at least two electrons/muons with uncalibrated $p_{\mathrm{T}} >$ 9 GeV are required.

Cutflow event yields in regions SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}$, SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}$, SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and SR5L the higgsino GGM RPC model with BR($\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1 \rightarrow Z \tilde{G}$) = 50% and higgsino masses of 200 GeV, or BR($\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1 \rightarrow Z \tilde{G}$) = 100% and higgsino masses of 300 GeV. All yields correspond to weighted events, so that effects from lepton reconstruction efficiencies, trigger corrections, pileup reweighting, etc., are included. They are normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data sample, $\int L dt = 139\,\mbox{fb\(^{-1}\)}$. The generator filter is a selection of $\geq$4e/$\mu$/$\tau_{\mathrm{had-vis}}$ leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}(e,\mu)>4$GeV, $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\tau_{\mathrm{had-vis}})>15$GeV and $|\eta|<2.8$ and is applied during the MC generation of the simulated events. The preliminary event reduction is a centralized stage where at least two electrons/muons with uncalibrated $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 9$ GeV are required.

Correlation coefficients $\rho_{i,j}$ for the statistical and systematic uncertainties between the $i$-th and $j$-th bin of the differential $A_E$ measurement as a function of the jet scattering angle $\theta_j$

The effects on the energy asymmetry of $1\sigma$ variations in its influencing nuisance parameters for the three $\theta_j$ bins. These are extracted from the samples of the posterior distribution with $\sigma_i^{(j)} = c_{ij}/\sqrt{c_{jj}}$ being the estimated shift of bin $i$ in conjunction with a shift $\Delta\theta_j$ of nuisance parameter $j$. The data statistical (Data stat.) uncertainty is obtained from running the unfolding with all nuisance parameters being fixed to their post-marginalised values, the MC statistical uncertainty on the response matrix ($t\bar{t}$ response MC stat.) is evaluated using a bootstrapping method from the covariance matrix of the ensemble of repeated unfolding results with varied response matrices. The $\gamma$ variations denote the statistical uncertainties of the background predictions in the corresponding bin of the $\Delta E$ vs $\theta_{j}$ distribution. The numbers appended to the $W$+jets PDF variations denote the corresponding NNPDF3.0 PDF sets.

The effects on the energy asymmetry of $1\sigma$ variations in its influencing nuisance parameters for the three $\theta_j$ bins. These are extracted from the samples of the posterior distribution with $\sigma_i^{(j)} = c_{ij}/\sqrt{c_{jj}}$ being the estimated shift of bin $i$ in conjunction with a shift $\Delta\theta_j$ of nuisance parameter $j$. The data statistical (Data stat.) uncertainty is obtained from running the unfolding with all nuisance parameters being fixed to their post-marginalised values, the MC statistical uncertainty on the response matrix ($t\bar{t}$ response MC stat.) is evaluated using a bootstrapping method from the covariance matrix of the ensemble of repeated unfolding results with varied response matrices. The $\gamma$ variations denote the statistical uncertainties of the background predictions in the corresponding bin of the $\Delta E$ vs $\theta_{j}$ distribution. The numbers appended to the $W$+jets PDF variations denote the corresponding NNPDF3.0 PDF sets.

Covariances $c_{ij}$ for the highest ranked systematic uncertainties in the energy asymmetry measurement differential in $\theta_j$.

Covariances $c_{ij}$ for the highest ranked systematic uncertainties in the energy asymmetry measurement differential in $\theta_j$.

Definition of the fiducial phase space with lepton candidate ($\ell$), hadronic top candidate ($j_h$), leptonic top candidate ($j_l$) and associated jet candidate ($j_a$).

Definition of the fiducial phase space with lepton candidate ($\ell$), hadronic top candidate ($j_h$), leptonic top candidate ($j_l$) and associated jet candidate ($j_a$).

Bounds on individual Wilson coefficients $C($TeV$/\Lambda)^2$ from the energy asymmetry, obtained from a combined fit to its values in all three $\theta_j$ bins.

Bounds on individual Wilson coefficients $C($TeV$/\Lambda)^2$ from the energy asymmetry, obtained from a combined fit to its values in all three $\theta_j$ bins.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured total cross section for multijet production as a function of $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ for 1.0 < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV. The total cross-sections are measured in the same fiducial phase-space region than the measured relative cross-sections as functions of event-shape variables for the corresponding $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ interval. The measurement in the last bin corresponds to $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 6.

Measured total cross section for multijet production as a function of $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ for 1.0 < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV. The total cross-sections are measured in the same fiducial phase-space region than the measured relative cross-sections as functions of event-shape variables for the corresponding $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ interval. The measurement in the last bin corresponds to $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 6.

Measured total cross section for multijet production as a function of $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ for 1.5 < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV. The total cross-sections are measured in the same fiducial phase-space region than the measured relative cross-sections as functions of event-shape variables for the corresponding $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ interval. The measurement in the last bin corresponds to $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 6.

Measured total cross section for multijet production as a function of $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ for 1.5 < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV. The total cross-sections are measured in the same fiducial phase-space region than the measured relative cross-sections as functions of event-shape variables for the corresponding $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ interval. The measurement in the last bin corresponds to $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 6.

Measured total cross section for multijet production as a function of $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ for $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV. The total cross-sections are measured in the same fiducial phase-space region than the measured relative cross-sections as functions of event-shape variables for the corresponding $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ interval. The measurement in the last bin corresponds to $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 6.

Measured total cross section for multijet production as a function of $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ for $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV. The total cross-sections are measured in the same fiducial phase-space region than the measured relative cross-sections as functions of event-shape variables for the corresponding $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ interval. The measurement in the last bin corresponds to $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 6.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.

The $1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ variation of the expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=1.0$.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.1$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.1$.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.15$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.15$.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.2$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.2$.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.4$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.4$.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.6$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0p6$.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=1.5$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=1.5$.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the leptoquark mass and coupling strength.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the leptoquark mass and coupling strength.

The minus $1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ variation of the observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the leptoquark mass and coupling strength.

The plus $1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ variation of the observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the leptoquark mass and coupling strength.

The $1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ variation of the expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the leptoquark mass and coupling strength.

Observed yields, and fake lepton background yields in the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ and $e^{-}\mu^{+}$ channels of SR-MET, along with the results of the $e^{+}\mu^{-}/e^{-}\mu^{+}$ ratio measurement and 1-sided p-value in SR-MET, binned in $M_{T2}$.

Observed yields, and fake lepton background yields in the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ and $e^{-}\mu^{+}$ channels of SR-JET, along with the results of the $e^{+}\mu^{-}/e^{-}\mu^{+}$ ratio measurement and 1-sided p-value in SR-JET, binned in $H_{\text{P}}$.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total number of signal events entering the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ and $e^{-}\mu^{+}$ channels of each bin of SR-MET. The regions are binned in the same way as the ratio $\rho$ measurement. The limits are shown for a selection of 'z' values, where 'z' is the fraction of the total signal events entering the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ channel.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total number of signal events entering the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ and $e^{-}\mu^{+}$ channels of each bin of SR-JET. The regions are binned in the same way as the ratio $\rho$ measurement. The limits are shown for a selection of 'z' values, where 'z' is the fraction of the total signal events entering the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ channel.

Signal yields following each cut in the analysis, for representative $R$-parity-violating supersymmetry and leptoquark signals. All yields are MC generator-weighted and normalised to $139~\text{fb}^{-1}$. The cut labelled `Preselection' includes trigger requirements, and requires exactly one Baseline electron and one Baseline muon. At this point, the muon charge-bias correction weights are also applied. The $R$-parity-violating supersymmetry models were generated by specifying a top-quark in the final state and applying a two-lepton filter, hence the first row also includes events where the top quark decays to an electron.