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.

The inclusive (SPS+DPS) cross-section ratio (times 10^6) as a function of J/psi transverse momentum under the TRANSVERSE-0 spin-alignment hypothesis. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second uncertainty is systematic.

The inclusive (SPS+DPS) cross-section ratio (times 10^6) as a function of J/psi transverse momentum under the TRANSVERSE-P spin-alignment hypothesis. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second uncertainty is systematic.

The inclusive (SPS+DPS) cross-section ratio (times 10^6) as a function of J/psi transverse momentum under the TRANSVERSE-M spin-alignment hypothesis. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second uncertainty is systematic.

Prompt and non-prompt production cross-section times branching ratio as a function of $\psi(2\mathrm{S})$ $p_{\rm T}$ for $\psi(2\mathrm{S})$ rapidity interval of $0\leq |y| < 0.75$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic. Spin-alignment and luminosity ($\pm 1.8\%$) uncertainties are not included.

Prompt and non-prompt production cross-section times branching ratio as a function of $\psi(2\mathrm{S})$ $p_{\rm T}$ for $\psi(2\mathrm{S})$ rapidity interval of $0.75\leq |y| < 1.5$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic. Spin-alignment and luminosity ($\pm 1.8\%$) uncertainties are not included.

Prompt and non-prompt production cross-section times branching ratio as a function of $\psi(2\mathrm{S})$ $p_{\rm T}$ for $\psi(2\mathrm{S})$ rapidity interval of $1.5\leq |y| < 2$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic. Spin-alignment and luminosity ($\pm 1.8\%$) uncertainties are not included.

Prompt and non-prompt production cross-section times branching ratio as a function of $J/\psi$ $p_{\rm T}$ for $J/\psi$ rapidity interval of $0\leq |y| < 0.75$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic. Spin-alignment and luminosity ($\pm 1.8\%$) uncertainties are not included.

Prompt and non-prompt production cross-section times branching ratio as a function of $J/\psi$ $p_{\rm T}$ for $J/\psi$ rapidity interval of $0.75\leq |y| < 1.5$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic. Spin-alignment and luminosity ($\pm 1.8\%$) uncertainties are not included.

Prompt and non-prompt production cross-section times branching ratio as a function of $J/\psi$ $p_{\rm T}$ for $J/\psi$ rapidity interval of $1.5\leq |y| < 2$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic. Spin-alignment and luminosity ($\pm 1.8\%$) uncertainties are not included.

Differential cross-section measurement for B+ production multiplied by the branching ratio to the J/PSI < MU+ MU- > K+ final state in B+ pT intervals in the B+ rapidity range 1.5<|y|<2.25 The first quoted uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic.

Differential cross-section measurement for B+ production multiplied by the branching ratio to the J/PSI < MU+ MU- > K+ final state in B+ pt intervals in the B+ rapidity (y) range 0<|y|<2.25. The first quoted uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic.

Differential cross-section measurement for B+ production multiplied by the branching ratio to the J/PSI < MU+ MU- > K+ final state in B+ rapidity intervals in the B+ pT range 9 GeV - 120 GeV. The first quoted uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic.

Fiducial Upsilon(nS) production cross-section, where pT>4 GeV and |eta|<2.3 for both muons, as a function of Upsilon(nS) rapidity (|y|) in Upsilon(nS) PT ranging from 0 - 70 GeV. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic.

Inclusive Upsilon(1S) production cross-section as a function of Upsilon(1S) pT in the Upsilon(1S) rapidity (|y|) bins 0-1.2 and 1.2-2.25. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic and the third encapsulates any possible variation due to spin-alignment from the unpolarised central value.

Inclusive Upsilon(2S) production cross-section as a function of Upsilon(2S) pT in the Upsilon(2S) rapidity (|y|) bins 0-1.2 and 1.2-2.25. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic and the third encapsulates any possible variation due to spin-alignment from the unpolarised central value.

Inclusive Upsilon(3S) production cross-section as a function of Upsilon(3S) pT in the Upsilon(3S) rapidity (|y|) bins 0-1.2 and 1.2-2.25. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic and the third encapsulates any possible variation due to spin-alignment from the unpolarised central value.

Inclusive Upsilon(nS) production cross-section as a function of Upsilon(nS) rapidity (|y|) in Upsilon(nS) PT ranging from 0 - 70 GeV. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic and the third encapsulates any possible variation due to spin-alignment from the unpolarised central value.

Expected cross section times branching ratio as a function of $\tilde{\nu}_{\tau}$ mass in the $e\mu$ channel for the arbitrary choice of couplings $\lambda_{311}^{'}=0.11$ and $\lambda_{i3k}=0.07$.

Expected cross section times branching ratio as a function of Z' mass in the $e\mu$ channel for the arbitrary choice of couplings $Q_{ll^{'}}=1$.

Inputs used for the $\tilde{\nu}_{\tau}$ -->$e\tau$ channel limit setting.

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.

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.

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.

The Acceptance, Efficiency and Acceptance x Efficiency for the tau+muon channel as a function of Lambda and Tan(Beta).

The Acceptance, Efficiency and Acceptance x Efficiency for the tau+electron channel as a function of Lambda and Tan(Beta).