Distribution of the PT of the leading muon for E-MU events in the Signal Region, before the application of the leading lepton PT cut.

Distribution of the missing ET for all events in the Signal Region.

Distribution of MET-significnce, ie the missing ET/sqrt(scalar sum of PT of all leptons and jets), for all events in the Signal Region.

Distribution of the missing ET for E-E events in the Z Control Region.

Distribution of the missing ET for MU-MU events in the Z Control Region.

Distribution of the missing ET for E-E events in the Top Control Region.

Distribution of the missing ET for E-MU events in the Top Control Region.

Distribution of the missing ET for MU-MU events in the Top Control Region.

Distribution of the Jet Multiplicity for all events in the Top Control Region.

Distribution of the B-Jet Multiplicity for all events in the Top Control Region.

Distribution of the PT of the leading Jet for all events in the Top Control Region.

Distribution of the PT of the leading B-Jet for all events in the Top Control Region.

Number of tracks in vertex vs invariant mass of vertex (DATA) The number of tracks in the vertex vs the invariant mass of the vertex, for the data, and for the MH signal sample respectively. All selection cuts are applied, with the exceptions of those on the variables in the plot (Ntrk and mass), and the offline muon requirements.

Number of tracks in vertex vs invariant mass of vertex (SIGNAL) The number of tracks in the vertex vs the invariant mass of the vertex, for the data, and for the MH signal sample respectively. All selection cuts are applied, with the exceptions of those on the variables in the plot (Ntrk and mass), and the offline muon requirements.

95% CL upper limit on sigma.BR^2 vs c*tau The observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section for squark production, multiplied by the branching fraction for both squarks to decay to long-lived neutralinos, which in turn decay to mu+jets, given that we observed zero events in the signal region.

Expected upper limit on sigma.BR^2 vs c*tau The expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section for squark production, multiplied by the branching fraction for both squarks to decay to long-lived neutralinos, which in turn decay to mu+jets.

Measured jet multiplicity distribution in the $W\mu\nu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured dilepton invariant mass distribution in the $Z\mu\mu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. P P --> Z0 JET(S) X.

Measured $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in the $Z\mu\mu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. P P --> Z0 JET(S) X.

Measured leading jet $p_{T}$ distribution in the $Z\mu\mu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. P P --> Z0 JET(S) X.

Measured jet multiplicity distribution in the $Z\mu\mu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. P P --> Z0 JET(S) X.

Measured transverse mass distribution in the $We\nu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in the $We\nu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured leading jet $p_{T}$ distribution in the $We\nu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured jet multiplicity distribution in the $We\nu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured dilepton invariant mass distribution in the $Zee$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in the $Zee$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured leading jet $p_{T}$ distribution in the $Zee$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured jet multiplicity distribution in the $Zee$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured distribution of the jet multiplicity for the SR1 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of $E_{T}^{miss}$ for the SR1 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of leading jet $p_{T}$ for the SR1 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the leading jet $p_{T}$ to $E_{T}^{miss}$ ratio for the SR1 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the jet multiplicity for SR7 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the jet multiplicity for SR7 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the leading jet $p_T$ for SR7 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the leading jet $p_T$ for SR9 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the leading jet $p_T$ to $E_{T}^{miss}$ ratio for SR7 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the leading jet $p_T$ to $E_{T}^{miss}$ ratio for SR9 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Observed and expected 95$\%$ CL limit on the fundamental Planck scale in $4+n$ dimensions, $M_D$, as a function of the number of extra dimensions. In the figure the two results overlap. The shaded areas around the expected limit indicate the expected $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ ranges of limits in the absence of a signal. The 95$\%$ CL observed limits after the suppression of the events with $\hat{s} > M_D^2$ is applied (truncated) are also given.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the scalar operator D1. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the vector operator D5. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the axial vector operator D8. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the tensor operator D9. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the gluon operator D11. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the gluon operator C5. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Observed 95% CL limits on the suppression scale M* as a function of the mediator mass Mmed, assuming a Z'-like boson in a simplified model and a DM mass of 50 GeV and 400 GeV. The width of the mediator is varied between Mmed/3 and Mmed/8pi.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of couplings of the simplified model vertex in the plane of mediator and WIMP mass (Mmed versus m_chi).

Upper limits at 90% C.L. on the WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section as a function of m_chi for spin-independent interactions, for a coupling strength of unity or the maximum value that keeps the model within its perturbative regime. The truncation procedure is applied for both cases.

Upper limits at 90% C.L. on the WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section as a function of m_chi for spin-dependent interactions, for a coupling strength of unity or the maximum value that keeps the model within its perturbative regime. The truncation procedure is applied for both cases.

Upper limits at 90% C.L. on the WIMP-nucleon annihilation cross section as a function of m_chi, for a coupling strength of unity or the maximum value that keeps the model within its perturbative regime. The truncation procedure is applied for both cases.

95$\%$ CL lower limits on the gravitino mass $m_{\tilde{G}}$ as a function of the squark mass $m_{\tilde{q}}$ for degenerate squark/gluino masses.

95$\%$ CL lower limits on the gravitino mass $m_{\tilde{G}}$ as a function of the squark mass $m_{\tilde{q}}$ for non-degenerate squark/gluino masses: $ m_{\tilde{g}} = 1/2 \times m_{\tilde{q}}$.

95$\%$ CL lower limits on the gravitino mass $m_{\tilde{G}}$ as a function of the squark mass $m_{\tilde{q}}$ for non-degenerate squark/gluino masses: $ m_{\tilde{g}} = 1/4 \times m_{\tilde{q}}$.

95$\%$ CL lower limits on the gravitino mass $m_{\tilde{G}}$ as a function of the squark mass $m_{\tilde{q}}$ for non-degenerate squark/gluino masses: $ m_{\tilde{g}} = 2 \times m_{\tilde{q}}$.

95$\%$ CL lower limits on the gravitino mass $m_{\tilde{G}}$ as a function of the squark mass $m_{\tilde{q}}$ for non-degenerate squark/gluino masses: $ m_{\tilde{g}} = 4 \times m_{\tilde{q}}$.

Observed and expected 95$\%$ CL upper limit on $\sigma \times {\rm{BR}}(H \to {\rm{invisible}})$ as a function of the Higgs boson mass.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the scalar operator C1. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Observed and predicted W+W- transverse mass distribution in the E-E channel. Also tabulated are the predictions for a RS graviton of mass 1000 GeV and a bulk RS graviton with mass 600 GeV.

Observed and predicted W+W- transverse mass distribution in the E-MU channel. Also tabulated are the predictions for a RS graviton of mass 1000 GeV and a bulk RS graviton with mass 600 GeV.

The distrubution of second leading jet pT for SR1 for the combined EE and MUMU channels. Tabulated are the observed Data rates and the Standard Model predictions as well as the distributions expected for two signal scenarios, both with an STOP mass of 250 GeV, and NEUTRALINO1 masses of 100 GeV and 220 GeV respectively. The last pT bin includes the number of overflow events for both data abd SM expectation.

The observed exclusion limits at 95% C.L. (using the CLs prescription) in the stop-neutralino1 mass plane, assuming direct stop pair production in the framework of GMSB models with light higgsinos.

The expected exclusion limits at 95% C.L. (using the CLs prescription) in the stop-neutralino1 mass plane, assuming direct stop pair production in the framework of GMSB models with light higgsinos.

The +1sigma contour around the median of the expected exclusion limits at 95% C.L. (using the CLs prescription) in the stop-neutralino1 mass plane, assuming direct stop pair production in the framework of GMSB models with light higgsinos.

The -1sigma contour around the median of the expected exclusion limits at 95% C.L. (using the CLs prescription) in the stop-neutralino1 mass plane, assuming direct stop pair production in the framework of GMSB models with light higgsinos.

The acceptance, using prompt leptons only, in the stop1-neutralino1 mass plane for SR1 and SR2.

The efficiancy in the stop1-neutralino1 mass plane for SR1 and SR2.

The total systematic uncertainty, including both theoretical and experimental uncertainties, in the stop1-neutralino1 mass plane for SR1 and SR2.

The CLs values in the stop1-neutralino1 mass plane for SR1 and SR2.

The number of generated MC events for each signal point in the stop1-neutralino1 mass plane before applying the dilepton filter efficiency. After that, 25K events per point are simulated.

The cross section of stop1-stop1 in the stop1-neutralino1 mass plane.

Distribution of HT after the MTtau requirement for the 1-tau ''Tight'' SR. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in the CRs corresponding to MTtau below 130 GeV. Also shown is the expected signal from typical mSUGRA, GMSB and bRPV samples. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin.

Distribution of MTtau1 + MTtau2 in the 2tau channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR requirements on MTtau1 + MTtau2 and HT2j. To reduce the contributions from events with Z bosons decaying into tau leptons, the requirement MTtau1 + MTtau2 > 150 GeV is applied to all distributions. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in the CRs corresponding to HT2j below 550 GeV.

Distribution of HT2j in the 2tau channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR requirements on MTtau1 + MTtau2 and HT2j. To reduce the contributions from events with Z bosons decaying into tau leptons, the requirement MTtau1 + MTtau2 > 150 GeV is applied to all distributions. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in the CRs corresponding to HT2j below 550 GeV.

Distribution of the jet multiplicity in the 2tau channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR requirements on MTtau1 + MTtau2 and HT2j. To reduce the contributions from events with Z bosons decaying into tau leptons, the requirement MTtau1 + MTtau2 > 150 GeV is applied to all distributions. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in the CRs corresponding to HT2j below 550 GeV.

Distribution of the final kinematic variables in the tau+e channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR selections on Meff for the bRPV model. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in specific CRs. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin. There are no data events in the overflow bin after all analysis requirements are applied.

Distribution of the final kinematic variables in the tau+e channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR selections on MEFF for the GMSB model. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in specific CRs. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin. There are no data events in the overflow bin after all analysis requirements are applied.

Distribution of the final kinematic variables in the tau+e channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR selections on MET for the mSUGRA model. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in specific CRs. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin. There are no data events in the overflow bin after all analysis requirements are applied.

Distribution of the final kinematic variables in the tau+e channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR selections on MET for the nGM model. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in specific CRs. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin. There are no data events in the overflow bin after all analysis requirements are applied.

Distribution of the final kinematic variables in the tau+mu channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR selections on MEFF for the bRPV model. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in specific CRs. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin. There are no data events in the overflow bin after all analysis requirements are applied.

Distribution of the final kinematic variables in the tau+mu channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR selections on MEFF for the GMSB model. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in specific CRs. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin. There are no data events in the overflow bin after all analysis requirements are applied.

Distribution of the final kinematic variables in the tau+mu channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR selections on MET for the mSUGRA model. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in specific CRs. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin. There are no data events in the overflow bin after all analysis requirements are applied.

Distribution of the final kinematic variables in the tau+mu channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR selections on MET for the nGM model. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in specific CRs. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin. There are no data events in the overflow bin after all analysis requirements are applied.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on the minimal GMSB model parameters Lambda and tan(beta) using a combination of all channels. The result is obtained using 20.3 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 8 TeV ATLAS data. Additional model parameters are M(mess) = 250 TeV, N5 = 3, mu>0 and Cgrav =1.

Expected 95% CL lower limits on the minimal GMSB model parameters Lambda and tan(beta) using a combination of all channels. The result is obtained using 20.3 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 8 TeV ATLAS data. Additional model parameters are M(mess) = 250 TeV, N5 = 3, mu>0 and Cgrav =1.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on the mSUGRA/CMSSM model parameters m0 and m1/2 for the combination of the 1tau, tau+e and tau+mu channels. Additional model parameters are A0 = -2m0, tan(beta) = 30 and sign(mu) = +1.

Expected 95% CL lower limits on the mSUGRA/CMSSM model parameters m0 and m1/2 for the combination of the 1tau, tau+e and tau+mu channels. Additional model parameters are A0 = -2m0, tan(beta) = 30 and sign(mu) = +1.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on the simplified nGM model parameters m(stau) and m(gluino) for the combination of the 2tau, tau+e and tau+mu channels. Additional squark and slepton mass parameters are set to 2.5 TeV, M1 = M2 = 2.5 TeV, and all trilinear coupling terms are set to zero. Also, the parameter mu is fixed to mu = 400 GeV.

Expected 95% CL lower limits on the simplified nGM model parameters m(stau) and m(gluino) for the combination of the 2tau, tau+e and tau+mu channels. Additional squark and slepton mass parameters are set to 2.5 TeV, M1 = M2 = 2.5 TeV, and all trilinear coupling terms are set to zero. Also, the parameter mu is fixed to mu = 400 GeV.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on the bRPV model parameters m0 and m1/2 for the combination of all channels. Additional model parameters are A0 = -2m0 , tan(beta) = 30 and sign(mu) = +1.

Expected 95% CL lower limits on the bRPV model parameters m0 and m1/2 for the combination of all channels. Additional model parameters are A0 = -2m0 , tan(beta) = 30 and sign(mu) = +1.

Cross section predictions for the nGM grid. For each signal point 25000 MC events have been generated.

Observed upper cross section limits for the nGM grid. For each signal point 25000 MC events have been generated. The limit is derived for the combination of the 2tau and the tau+lepton channels.

Systematic uncertainty for the GMSB grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Acceptance for the GMSB grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Efficiency for the GMSB grid in the 1-tau analysis.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the GMSB grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Expected CLs values for the GMSB grid in the 1tau analysis.

Observed CLs values for the GMSB grid in the 1tau analysis.

Systematic uncertainty for the mSUGRA grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Acceptance for the mSUGRA grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Efficiency for the mSUGRA grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the mSUGRA grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Expected CLs values for the mSUGRA grid in the 1tau analysis.

Observed CLs values for the mSUGRA grid in the 1tau analysis.

Systematic uncertainty for the bRPV grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Acceptance for the bRPV grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Efficiency for the bRPV grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the bRPV grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Expected CLs values for the bRPV grid in the 1tau analysis.

Observed CLs values for the bRPV grid in the 1tau analysis.

Systematic uncertainty for the GMSB grid in the 2tau analysis.

Acceptance for the GMSB grid in the 2tau analysis.

Efficiency for the GMSB grid in the 2tau analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the GMSB grid in the 2tau analysis.

Expected CLs values for the GMSB grid in the 2tau analysis.

Observed CLs values for the GMSB grid in the 2tau analysis.

Systematic uncertainty for the nGM grid in the 2tau analysis.

Acceptance for the nGM grid in the 2tau analysis.

Efficiency for the nGM grid in the 2tau analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the nGM grid in the 2tau analysis.

Expected CLs values for the nGM grid in the 2tau analysis.

Observed CLs values for the nGM grid in the 2tau analysis.

Systematic uncertainty for the bRPV grid in the 2tau analysis.

Acceptance for the bRPV grid in the 2tau analysis.

Efficiency for the bRPV grid in the 2tau analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the bRPV grid in the 2tau analysis.

Expected CLs values for the bRPV grid in the 2tau analysis.

Observed CLs values for the bRPV grid in the 2tau analysis.

Systematic Uncertainty for the GMSB grid in the tau+e analysis.

Acceptance for the GMSB grid in the tau+e analysis.

Efficiency for the GMSB grid in the tau+e analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the GMSB grid in the tau+e analysis.

Expected CLs values for the GMSB grid in the tau+e analysis.

Observed CLs values for the GMSB grid in the tau+e analysis.

Systematic Uncertainty for the nGM grid in the tau+e analysis.

Acceptance for the nGM grid in the tau+e analysis.

Efficiency for the nGM grid in the tau+e analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the nGM grid in the tau+e analysis.

Expected CLs values for the nGM grid in the tau+e analysis.

Observed CLs values for the nGM grid in the tau+e analysis.

Systematic Uncertainty for the bRPV grid in the tau+e analysis.

Acceptance for the bRPV grid in the tau+e analysis.

Efficiency for the bRPV grid in the tau+e analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the bRPV grid in the tau+e analysis.

Expected CLs values for the bRPV grid in the tau+e analysis.

Observed CLs values for the bRPV grid in the tau+e analysis.

Systematic Uncertainty for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+e analysis.

Acceptance for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+e analysis.

Efficiency for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+e analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+e analysis.

Expected CLs values for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+e analysis.

Observed CLs values for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+e analysis.

Systematic Uncertainty for the GMSB grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Acceptance for the GMSB grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Efficiency for the GMSB grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the GMSB grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Expected CLs values for the GMSB grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Observed CLs values for the GMSB grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Systematic Uncertainty for the nGM grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Acceptance for the nGM grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Efficiency for the nGM grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the nGM grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Expected CLs values for the nGM grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Observed CLs values for the nGM grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Systematic Uncertainty for the bRPV grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Acceptance for the bRPV grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Efficiency for the bRPV grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the bRPV grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Expected CLs values for the bRPV grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Observed CLs values for the bRPV grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Systematic Uncertainty for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Acceptance for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Efficiency for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Expected CLs values for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Observed CLs values for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Example cutflow for three benchmark signal points in the 1-tau channel. For the GMSB point 50000 events have been generated, 20000 for nGM and 20000 for mSUGRA respectively. These event numbers are then normalised to 21 fb^{-1} luminosity.

Example cutflow for three benchmark signal points in the 2tau analysis. Specific SRs are indicated at the respective cut. Event numbers are normalised to 21 fb^{-1} luminosity. For the GMSB point 50000 events have been generated, 20000 for nGM and 25000 for bRPV respectively.

Example cutflow for four benchmark signal points in the tau+e analysis. Event numbers are normalised to 21 fb^{-1} luminosity. For the GMSB point 50000 events have been generated, 20000 for nGM, 20000 for mSUGRA and 25000 for bRPV respectively.

Example cutflow for four benchmark signal points in the tau+mu analysis. Event numbers are normalised to 21 fb^{-1} luminosity. For the GMSB point 50000 events have been generated, 20000 for nGM, 20000 for mSUGRA and 25000 for bRPV respectively.