The total uncertainty covariance matrix for measured differential cross sections in $m_{4\ell}$ bins in fiducial volume. The matrix elements are in unit of $[$fb/TeV$]^2$.

The total uncertainty covariance matrix for measured differential cross sections in $p_\mathrm{T}^{4\ell}$ bins in fiducial volume. The matrix elements are in unit of $[$fb/TeV$]^2$.

Measured integrated cross sections for the $Z\gamma\gamma$ process for neutrino final state at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV in the extended fiducial regions defined in the paper, table 5. The parton-to-particle correction factors are also shown, which are defined as the ratio of the cross sections at parton-level to the cross sections at particle-level.

The differential cross sections as a function of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ for the $pp \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}\gamma$ process in the inclusive $N_{\mathrm{jets}} \geq 0$ extended fiducial region. The parton-to-particle correction factors are also shown, which are defined as the ratio of the cross sections at parton-level to the cross sections at particle-level.

The differential cross sections as a function of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ for the $pp \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}\gamma$ process in the exclusive $N_{\mathrm{jets}} = 0$ extended fiducial region. The parton-to-particle correction factors are also shown, which are defined as the ratio of the cross sections at parton-level to the cross sections at particle-level.

The differential cross sections as a function of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ for the $pp \rightarrow \nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ process in the inclusive $N_{\mathrm{jets}} \geq 0$ extended fiducial region. The parton-to-particle correction factors are also shown, which are defined as the ratio of the cross sections at parton-level to the cross sections at particle-level.

The differential cross sections as a function of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ for the $pp \rightarrow \nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ process in the exclusive $N_{\mathrm{jets}} = 0$ extended fiducial region. The parton-to-particle correction factors are also shown, which are defined as the ratio of the cross sections at parton-level to the cross sections at particle-level.

The differential cross sections as a function of $m_{\ell^{+}\ell^{-}\gamma}$ for the $pp \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}\gamma$ process in the inclusive $N_{\mathrm{jets}} \geq 0$ extended fiducial region. The parton-to-particle correction factors are also shown, which are defined as the ratio of the cross sections at parton-level to the cross sections at particle-level.

The differential cross sections as a function of $m_{\ell^{+}\ell^{-}\gamma}$ for the $pp \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}\gamma$ process in the exclusive $N_{\mathrm{jets}} = 0$ extended fiducial region. The parton-to-particle correction factors are also shown, which are defined as the ratio of the cross sections at parton-level to the cross sections at particle-level.

The cross sections as a function of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ for the $pp \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}\gamma$ process in the extended fiducial region. The parton-to-particle correction factors are also shown, which are defined as the ratio of the cross sections at parton-level to the cross sections at particle-level.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

+1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

-1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

+1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

-1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at no b-jet requirement. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at least 1 b-jet. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at least 2 b-jets. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Summary of all 15 signal regions (post-fit).

Signal region yielding the best-expected CLs value, the best expected CLs value, and the corresponding observed CLs value for the 2Step grid.

Signal region yielding the best-expected CLs value, the best expected CLs value, and the corresponding observed CLs value for the pMSSM grid.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section for 2-step signal points for the best-expected signal region.

Performance of the 8j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Summary of results for cross-section of non-prompt $J/\psi$ decaying to a muon pair for 8 TeV data in nb/GeV. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for cross-section of prompt $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair for 7 TeV data in nb/GeV. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for cross-section of prompt $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair for 8 TeV data in nb/GeV. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for cross-section of non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair for 7 TeV data in nb/GeV. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for cross-section of non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair for 8 TeV data in nb/GeV. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $J/\psi$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 7 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $J/\psi$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 8 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 7 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 8 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 7 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 8 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 7 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 8 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "longitudinal" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "transverse zero" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "transverse positive" spin-alignment transverse positive hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "transverse negative" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "off-($\lambda_{\theta}$--$\lambda_{\phi}$)-plane positive" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "off-($\lambda_{\theta}$--$\lambda_{\phi}$)-plane negative" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "longitudinal" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "transverse zero" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "transverse positive" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "transverse negative" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "off-($\lambda_{\theta}$--$\lambda_{\phi}$)-plane positive" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "off-($\lambda_{\theta}$--$\lambda_{\phi}$)-plane negative" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "longitudinal" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "transverse zero" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "transverse positive" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "transverse negative" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "off-($\lambda_{\theta}$--$\lambda_{\phi}$)-plane positive" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "off-($\lambda_{\theta}$--$\lambda_{\phi}$)-plane negative" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "longitudinal" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "transverse zero" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "transverse positive" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "transverse negative" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "off-($\lambda_{\theta}$--$\lambda_{\phi}$)-plane positive" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "off-($\lambda_{\theta}$--$\lambda_{\phi}$)-plane negative" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Missing transverse momentum distribution after SR3b selection, beside the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ requirement. The results in the signal region correspond to the last inclusive bin. The systematic uncertainties include theory uncertainties for the backgrounds with prompt SS/3L and the full systematic uncertainties for data-driven backgrounds. For illustration the distribution for a benchmark SUSY scenario ($pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$, $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$, $m_{\tilde g}=1.2$ TeV, $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}=0.7$ TeV) is also shown.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar q(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR0b3j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar q(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR0b3j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar qWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR0b5j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar qWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR0b5j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ production and $\tilde b_1\to tW\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR1b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ production and $\tilde b_1\to tW\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR1b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR3b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR3b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

Ratio of the fiducial cross section for $t\bar{t}$ events with two leptons and at least four b-jets to the fiducial cross section for $t\bar{t}$ events with two leptons and at least four jets, at least two of which must be b-jets. The definition of the cross-sections includes $t\bar{t}+Z / H$ events that pass the fiducial requirements.

Measured fiducial cross section for $t\bar{t}$ events with exactly one lepton and at least five jets, of which at least three are b-jets. The definition of the cross-section excludes $t\bar{t}+Z / H$ events that pass the fiducial requirements.

Measured fiducial cross section for $t\bar{t}$ events with two leptons and at least three b-jets. The definition of the cross-section excludes $t\bar{t}+Z / H$ events that pass the fiducial requirements.

Measured fiducial cross section for $t\bar{t}$ events with two leptons and at least four b-jets. The definition of the cross-section excludes $t\bar{t}+Z / H$ events that pass the fiducial requirements.

Ratio of the fiducial cross section for $t\bar{t}$ events with two leptons and at least four b-jets to the fiducial cross section for $t\bar{t}$ events with two leptons and at least four jets, at least two of which must be b-jets. The definition of the cross-sections excludes $t\bar{t}+Z / H$ events that pass the fiducial requirements.

Distribution of missing transverse momentum in the data and for the background in the PhJetCR. The total background expectation is normali zed to the post-fit result. The errors include both statistical and systematic uncertainties determined by a bin-by-bin fit.

Distribution of missing transverse momentum in the signal region for data and for the background predicted from the fit in the CRs. Overflows are included in the final bin. The errors include both statistical and systematic components. The expected yield of events from the simplified model with $m_\chi$ = 150 GeV and $m_{med}$ = 500 GeV is also shown.

Distribution of photon transverse momentum in the signal region for data and for the background predicted from the fit in the CRs. Overflows are included in the final bin. The errors include both statistical and systematic components. The expected yield of events from the simplified model with $m_\chi$ = 150 GeV and $m_{med}$ = 500 GeV is also shown.

The observed and 95% CL exclusion limit for a simplified model of dark matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_q$ = 0.25 and $g_\chi$ = 1 as a function of the dark matter mass $m_\chi$ and the axial-mediator mass $m_{med}$.

The observed 90% CL exclusion limit on the DM-proton scattering cross section in a simplifed model of dark matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_q$ = 0.25 and $g_\chi$ = 1 as a function of the dark matter mass $m_\chi$.

The observed 95% CL lower limits on $M_\ast$ for a dimension-7 operator EFT model with a contact interaction of type $\gamma\gamma\chi\chi$ as a function of dark matter mass $m_\chi$.

The observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass scale $M_D$ in the ADD models of large extra dimensions, for several values of the number of extra dimensions.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 900 GeV as a function of pseudorapidity for events with the number of charged particles >=2 having transverse momentum >100 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 7000 GeV as a function of pseudorapidity for events with the number of charged particles >=2 having transverse momentum >100 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 900 GeV as a function of pseudorapidity for events with the number of charged particles >=6 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 7000 GeV as a function of pseudorapidity for events with the number of charged particles >=6 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 900 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 2360 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 7000 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 900 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=2 having transverse momentum >100 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 7000 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=2 having transverse momentum >100 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 900 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=6 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 7000 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=6 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicity distributions in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 900 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicity distributions in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 2360 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicity distributions in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 7000 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicity distributions in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 900 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=2 having transverse momentum >100 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicity distributions in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 7000 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=2 having transverse momentum >100 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicity distributions in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 900 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=6 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicity distributions in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 7000 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=6 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Average transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 900 GeV as a function of the number of charged particles in the event for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Average transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 7000 GeV as a function of the number of charged particles in the event for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Average transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 900 GeV as a function of the number of charged particles in the event for events with the number of charged particles >=2 having transverse momentum >100 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Average transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 7000 GeV as a function of the number of charged particles in the event for events with the number of charged particles >=2 having transverse momentum >100 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 900 GeV as a function of pseudorapidity for events with the number of charged particles >=20 having transverse momentum >100 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 7000 GeV as a function of pseudorapidity for events with the number of charged particles >=20 having transverse momentum >100 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 900 GeV as a function of pseudorapidity for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >2500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 7000 GeV as a function of pseudorapidity for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >2500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 900 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=20 having transverse momentum >100 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 7000 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=20 having transverse momentum >100 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 900 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >2500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 7000 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >2500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicity distributions in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 900 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=20 having transverse momentum >100 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicity distributions in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 7000 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=20 having transverse momentum >100 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicity distributions in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 900 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >2500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicity distributions in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 7000 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >2500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Average transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 900 GeV as a function of the number of charged particles in the event for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >2500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Average transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of mass energy of 7000 GeV as a function of the number of charged particles in the event for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >2500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

The average charged-particle muliplicity per unit of rapidity for ETARAP=0 as a function of the centre-of-mass energy.

The average charged-particle muliplicity per unit of rapidity in the pseudorapidity region -2.5 to 2.5 for events with 2 or more charged particles as a function of the centre-of-mass energy.

Number of data events (20.3 fb$^{-1}$), number of predicted events from the fit, statistical uncertainty on the fit, systematic uncertainty on the choice of control region, and on the choice of fit function versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ lower bin edge for inclusive jet multiplicity $N_{\textrm{Jet}} \geq 6$. The total uncertainty is obtained by adding the three uncertainties linearly.

Number of data events (20.3 fb$^{-1}$), number of predicted events from the fit, statistical uncertainty on the fit, systematic uncertainty on the choice of control region, and on the choice of fit function versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ lower bin edge for inclusive jet multiplicity $N_{\textrm{Jet}} \geq 7$. The total uncertainty is obtained by adding the three uncertainties linearly.

Number of data events (20.3 fb$^{-1}$), number of predicted events from the fit, statistical uncertainty on the fit, systematic uncertainty on the choice of control region, and on the choice of fit function versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ lower bin edge for inclusive jet multiplicity $N_{\textrm{Jet}} \geq 8$. The total uncertainty is obtained by adding the three uncertainties linearly.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 3$.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 4$.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 5$.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 6$.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 7$.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 8$.

Mean reconstruction efficiencies $(\epsilon)$ and RMS of the reconstruction efficiencies for various black hole and string ball models.

Particle PT Density versus Lead Particle PT at centre-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Standard deviation of the Particle Number Density versus Lead Particle PT at centre-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Standard deviation of the Particle Number Density versus Lead Particle PT at centre-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Standard deviation of the Particle PT Density versus Lead Particle PT at centre-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Standard deviation of the Particle PT Density versus Lead Particle PT at centre-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Mean Particle PT versus Lead Particle PT at centre-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Mean Particle PT versus Lead Particle PT at centre-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Mean Particle PT versus Region Particle Number at centre-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Mean Particle PT versus Region Particle Number at centre-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Event Number Density versus \phi_{1} - \phi_{n} at centre-of-mass energy 900 GeV.

Event Number Density versus \phi_{1} - \phi_{n} at centre-of-mass energy 7000 GeV.

Event p_{T} Density versus \phi_{1} - \phi_{n} at centre-of-mass energy 900 GeV for a lower PT cut of 0.1 GeV.

Event p_{T} Density versus \phi_{1} - \phi_{n} at centre-of-mass energy 7000 GeV for a lower PT cut of 0.1 GeV.

Particle Number Density versus Lead Particle PT at centre-of-mass energy 900 GeV for a lower PT cut of 0.1 GeV.

Particle Number Density versus Lead Particle PT at centre-of-mass energy 7000 GeV for a lower PT cut of 0.1 GeV.

Particle PT Density versus Lead Particle PT at centre-of-mass energy 900 GeV for a lower PT cut of 0.1 GeV.

Particle PT Density versus Lead Particle PT at centre-of-mass energy 7000 GeV for a lower PT cut of 0.1 GeV.

Particle Number Density versus Leading Particle Pseudorapidity at centre-of-mass energy 7000 GeV for a lower PT cut of 0.1 GeV.

Particle PT Density versus Leading Particle Pseudorapidity at centre-of-mass energy 7000 GeV for a lower PT cut of 0.1 GeV.