$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ 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.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 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 multiplicity distribution in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV 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 13000 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.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of pseudorapidity for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 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.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicity distributions in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Extrapolated average transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 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.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of pseudorapidity for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Charged-particle multiplicity distribution in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Average transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 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) <0.8.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of pseudorapidity for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicity distributions in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Extrapolated average transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 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) <0.8.

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]].

Measured fiducial cross section in all $\ell^+\ell^-\ell'^+\ell'^-$ channels combined, where $\ell, \ell' = e, \mu$. The first systematic uncertainty is the combined systematic uncertainty excluding luminosity uncertainty, the second is the luminosity uncertainty.

Cross section extrapolated to total phase space and all Z boson decays. The first systematic uncertainty is the combined systematic uncertainty excluding luminosity uncertainty, the second is the luminosity uncertainty.

The distribution of the missing transverse momentum is shown in soft-lepton 2-jet W+jets control regions after normalising the ttbar and W+jets background processes in the simultaneous fit.

Expected background yields as obtained in the background-only fits in all hard-lepton and soft-lepton validation together with observed data are given. Uncertainties in the fitted background estimates combine statistical (in the simulated event yields) and systematic uncertainties.

Expected background yields as obtained in the background-only fits in all hard-lepton and soft-lepton signal together with observed data are given. Uncertainties in the fitted background estimates combine statistical (in the simulated event yields) and systematic uncertainties.

Distributions of mt for the hard-lepton 4-jet low-x signal region. The requirement on the variable plotted is removed from the definitions of the signal regions, where the arrow indicates the position of the cut in the signal region. The lower panels of the plots show the ratio of the observed data to the total background prediction as derived in the background-only fit. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties as discussed in Section 7. The component `Others' is the sum of Z+jets and ttbar+V. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of met/meff for the 4-jet high-x signal region. The requirement on the variable plotted is removed from the definitions of the signal regions, where the arrow indicates the position of the cut in the signal region. The lower panels of the plots show the ratio of the observed data to the total background prediction as derived in the background-only fit. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties as discussed in Section 7. The component `Others' is the sum of Z+jets and ttbar+V. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of mt for the hard-lepton 5-jet signal region. The requirement on the variable plotted is removed from the definitions of the signal regions, where the arrow indicates the position of the cut in the signal region. The lower panels of the plots show the ratio of the observed data to the total background prediction as derived in the background-only fit. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties as discussed in Section 7. The component `Others' is the sum of Z+jets and ttbar+V. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of mt for the hard-lepton 6-jet signal region. The requirement on the variable plotted is removed from the definitions of the signal regions, where the arrow indicates the position of the cut in the signal region. The lower panels of the plots show the ratio of the observed data to the total background prediction as derived in the background-only fit. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties as discussed in Section 7. The component `Others' is the sum of Z+jets and ttbar+V. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of met for the soft-lepton 2-jet signal region. The requirement on the variable plotted is removed from the definitions of the signal regions, where the arrow indicates the position of the cut in the signal region. The lower panels of the plots show the ratio of the observed data to the total background prediction as derived in the background-only fit. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties as discussed in Section 7. The component `Others' is the sum of Z+jets and ttbar+V. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of met for the soft-lepton 5-jet signal region. The requirement on the variable plotted is removed from the definitions of the signal regions, where the arrow indicates the position of the cut in the signal region. The lower panels of the plots show the ratio of the observed data to the total background prediction as derived in the background-only fit. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties as discussed in Section 7. The component `Others' is the sum of Z+jets and ttbar+V. The last bin includes the overflow.

The observed combined 95% CL exclusion limits in the the gluino simplified models using for each model point the signal region with the best expected sensitivity. The limits are presented in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ models.

The expected combined 95% CL exclusion limits in the the gluino simplified models using for each model point the signal region with the best expected sensitivity. The limits are presented in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ models.

The yellow band ($+ 1 \sigma$) of the combined 95% CL exclusion limits in the the gluino simplified models using for each model point the signal region with the best expected sensitivity. The limits are presented in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ models. The yellow band represents the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variation of the median expected limit due to the experimental and theoretical uncertainties.

The yellow band ($- 1 \sigma$) of the combined 95% CL exclusion limits in the the gluino simplified models using for each model point the signal region with the best expected sensitivity. The limits are presented in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ models. The yellow band represents the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variation of the median expected limit due to the experimental and theoretical uncertainties.

The observed combined 95% CL exclusion limits in the the gluino simplified models using for each model point the signal region with the best expected sensitivity. The limits are presented in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models where $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1))$.

The expected combined 95% CL exclusion limits in the the gluino simplified models using for each model point the signal region with the best expected sensitivity. The limits are presented in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models where $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1))$.

The yellow band ($+ 1 \sigma$) of the combined 95% CL exclusion limits in the the gluino simplified models using for each model point the signal region with the best expected sensitivity. The limits are presented in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models where $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1))$. The yellow band represents the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variation of the median expected limit due to the experimental and theoretical uncertainties.

The yellow band ($- 1 \sigma$) of the combined 95% CL exclusion limits in the the gluino simplified models using for each model point the signal region with the best expected sensitivity. The limits are presented in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models where $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1))$. The yellow band represents the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variation of the median expected limit due to the experimental and theoretical uncertainties.

The observed limits for the soft-lepton 2-jet signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ models.

The expected limits for the soft-lepton 2-jet signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ models.

The observed limits for the hard-lepton 4-jet low-x signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ models.

The expected limits for the hard-lepton 4-jet low-x signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ models.

The observed limits for the hard-lepton 5-jet signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ models.

The expected limits for the hard-lepton 5-jet signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ models.

The observed limits for the hard-lepton 6-jet signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ models.

The expected limits for the hard-lepton 6-jet signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ models.

The observed limits for the soft-lepton 5-jet signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models where $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1))$.

The expected limits for the soft-lepton 5-jet signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models where $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1))$.

The observed limits for the hard-lepton 4-jet low-x signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models where $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1))$.

The expected limits for the hard-lepton 4-jet low-x signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models where $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1))$.

The observed limits for the hard-lepton 4-jet high-x signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models where $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1))$.

The expected limits for the hard-lepton 4-jet high-x signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models where $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1))$.

The observed limits for the hard-lepton 5-jet signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models where $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1))$.

The expected limits for the hard-lepton 5-jet signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models where $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1))$.

The observed limits for the hard-lepton 6-jet signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models where $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1))$.

The expected limits for the hard-lepton 6-jet signal region. The limits are presented in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models where $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1))$.

Number of generated events in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$.

Number of generated events in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models.

Production cross-section in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$.

Production cross-section in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models.

Acceptance times efficiency obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ (hard-lepton 4-jet low-x).

Acceptance times efficiency in the different signal regions in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ (hard-lepton 4-jet high-x).

Acceptance times efficiency in the different signal regions in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ (hard-lepton 5-jet).

Acceptance times efficiency in the different signal regions in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ (hard-lepton 6-jet).

Acceptance times efficiency in the different signal regions in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ (soft-lepton 2-jet).

Acceptance times efficiency obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models (hard-lepton 4-jet low-x).

Acceptance times efficiency in the different signal regions in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models (hard-lepton 4-jet high-x).

Acceptance times efficiency in the different signal regions in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models (hard-lepton 5-jet).

Acceptance times efficiency in the different signal regions in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models (hard-lepton 6-jet).

Acceptance times efficiency in the different signal regions in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models (soft-lepton 5-jet).

The observed CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ (hard-lepton 4-jet low-x).

The observed CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ (hard-lepton 4-jet high-x).

The observed CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ (hard-lepton 5-jet).

The observed CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ (hard-lepton 6-jet).

The observed CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ (soft-lepton 2-jet).

The expected CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ (hard-lepton 4-jet low-x).

The expected CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ (hard-lepton 4-jet high-x).

The expected CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ (hard-lepton 5-jet).

The expected CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ (hard-lepton 6-jet).

The expected CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$ (soft-lepton 2-jet).

The observed CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models (hard-lepton 4-jet low-x).

The observed CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models (hard-lepton 4-jet high-x).

The observed CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models (hard-lepton 5-jet).

The observed CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models (hard-lepton 6-jet).

The observed CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models (soft-lepton 5-jet).

The expected CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models (hard-lepton 4-jet low-x).

The expected CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models (hard-lepton 4-jet high-x).

The expected CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models (hard-lepton 5-jet).

The expected CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models (hard-lepton 6-jet).

The expected CLs values as obtained in the different signal regions in the (gluino, x) plane for the chargino = 60 GeV models (soft-lepton 5-jet).

The signal region yielding in the best expected limit is indicated for every signal point used in the the gluino simplified models for the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$.

The signal region yielding in the best expected limit is indicated for every signal point used in the the gluino simplified models for the (gluino, x) mass plane where for the chargino = 60 GeV and $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1))$.

Model-dependent 95% CL upper limits on the visible cross-section in addition to the observed and expected exclusion limits for the (gluino, chargino) mass plane for the scenario where the mass of the chargino is fixed to $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1)) = 1/2$.

Model-dependent 95% CL upper limits on the visible cross-section in addition to the observed and expected exclusion limits for the (gluino, x) mass plane where for the chargino = 60 GeV and $x=(m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1))/(m(\tilde g) - m(\tilde\chi^0_1))$.

Simulated background event samples: the corresponding generator, parton shower, cross-section normalisation, PDF set and underlying-event tune are shown.

Overview of the selection criteria for the soft-lepton signal regions. The symbol $p_{T}^{l}$ refers to signal leptons.

Overview of the selection criteria for the hard-lepton signal regions. The symbol $p_{T}^{l}$ refers to signal leptons.

Background fit results for the hard-lepton and soft-lepton signal regions, for an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb-1. Uncertainties in the fitted background estimates combine statistical (in the simulated event yields) and systematic uncertainties. The uncertainties in this table are symmetrised for propagation purposes but truncated at zero to remain within the physical boundaries.

Breakdown of upper limits. The columns show from left to right: the name of the respective signal region; the 95% confidence level (CL) upper limits on the visible cross-section and on the number of signal events the 95% CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations on the expectation) of background events; the two-sided CLb value, i.e. the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis and the one-sided discovery p-value (p(s = 0)). The discovery p-values are capped to 0.5 in the case of observing less events than the fitted background estimates.

Table shows the data, fitted background and expected signal event counts for a benchmark signal point in each bin of the mt distribution shown in figure 5 (top left). The fit results are shown for an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb-1.

Table shows the data, fitted background and expected signal event counts for a benchmark signal point in each bin of the met/meff distribution shown in figure 5 (top right). The fit results are shown for an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb-1.

Table shows the data, fitted background and expected signal event counts for a benchmark signal point in each bin of the mt distribution shown in figure 5 (middle left). The fit results are shown for an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb-1.

Table shows the data, fitted background and expected signal event counts for a benchmark signal point in each bin of the mt distribution shown in figure 5 (middle right). The fit results are shown for an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb-1.

Table shows the data, fitted background and expected signal event counts for a benchmark signal point in each bin of the met distribution shown in figure 5 (bottom left). The fit results are shown for an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb-1.

Table shows the data, fitted background and expected signal event counts for a benchmark signal point in each bin of the met distribution shown in figure 5 (bottom right). The fit results are shown for an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb-1.

Cutflow table for the hard-lepton signal regions with representative target signal models. The weighted numbers are normalized to 3.2 fb-1 and rounded to the statistical error.

Cutflow table for the hard-lepton signal regions with representative target signal models. The weighted numbers are normalized to 3.2 fb-1 and rounded to the statistical error.

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the FCNC top-quark candidate in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the SM top-quark candidate in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the transverse momentum of the Z boson candidate in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the third lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded inclusive leptonic asymmetry. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ < 500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [500,750] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [750,1000] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [1000,1500] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ > 1500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ < 30 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [30,120] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > 120 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 200 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [200,300] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [300,400] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 400 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 20 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [20, 70] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 70 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Probability of finding at least one TAR jet, where the p_T-leading TAR jet passes the m_Wcand and D₂^&beta;=1 requirements, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=500 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1000 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1700 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Observed exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected+1&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected-1&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected+2&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected-2&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=0.5 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=1.7 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=2.1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=2.1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Data overlaid on SM background yields stacked in each SR and CR category after the fit to data ('Post-fit'). The yields in the SR are broken down into their contributions to the individual bins. The maximum-likelihood estimators are set to the conditional values of the CR-only fit, and propagated to SR and CRs.

Dominant sources of uncertainty for three dark Higgs scenarios after the fit to data. The uncertainties are quantified in terms of their contribution to the fitted signal uncertainty that is expressed relative to the theory prediction. Three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01 and m_&chi;=200 GeV are considered, which are indicated using the (m_Z', m_s) format in units of GeV in the table columns.

Cumulative efficiencies in the merged category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_&chi;=200 GeV considering s&rarr;W(&ell;&nu;)W(qq) decays only.

Cumulative efficiencies in the resolved category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_&chi;=200 GeV considering s&rarr;W(&ell;&nu;)W(qq) decays only.

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={300, 350, 400, 500, 750} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={1000, 1700} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={2100, 2500, 2900, 3300} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the high-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the collinear mass $m_\text{coll}$ in the high-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $e\tau_\mu$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the collinear mass $m_\text{coll}$ in the high-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

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

Observed and expected upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(Z\rightarrow\ell\tau)$ at 95% confidence level, combination of hadronically and leptonically decaying $\tau$ channels.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the collinear mass $m_\text{coll}$ in the CRZ$\tau\tau$ for the $e\tau_\mu$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the collinear mass $m_\text{coll}$ in the CRZ$\tau\tau$ for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the CRZ$\tau\tau$ for the $e\tau_\mu$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the CRZ$\tau\tau$ for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the leading lepton transverse momentum $p_\text{T}(e)$ in the high-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $e\tau_\mu$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the leading lepton transverse momentum $p_\text{T}(\mu)$ in the high-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the missing transverse momentum $E^\text{miss}_\text{T}$ in the low-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $e\tau_\mu$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the missing transverse momentum $E^\text{miss}_\text{T}$ in the low-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

Expected and observed 95% CL for the 1SFH mu Majorana model.

Expected and observed 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model.

Expected and observed 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Majorana model.

Expected and observed 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model.

Expected and observed 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model.

Cutflow for six simulated signal channels showing the weighted number of expected events based on the single-flavour mixing model in the Majorana limit. Each column uses the generated signal sample with the mass hypothesis $m_N = 10$ GeV and proper decay length $c\tau_N = 10$ mm.

Cutflow for the six channels in data showing the number of events passing each successive signal selection for Majorana HNLs.

The event selection efficiency for each mass-lifetime point in all six studied channels. Shown is the fraction of the produced MC simulation events that pass all signal region selections. An entry of 0 indicates no events were selected.

The dominant signal uncertainty is due to differences in reconstruction of displaced vertices and tracks between data and MC. This is evaluated by comparing $K^{0}_{S} \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ event yields in the VR and in MC produced with Pythia8.186 in bins of $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $r_\mathrm{DV}$. The data/MC ratio is normalized to the bin nearest the IP where the tracking and vertexing reconstruction algorithms are expected to be most robust. The symmetrized difference from 1.0 is applied to each signal vertex as a per-event systematic variation.

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 1SFH e Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 1SFH e Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 1SFH e Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 1SFH e Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 1SFH u Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 1SFH u Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 1SFH u Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 1SFH u Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 2QDH (NH) Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 2QDH (NH) Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 2QDH (NH) Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 2QDH (NH) Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 2QDH (IH) Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 2QDH (IH) Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 2QDH (IH) Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 2QDH (IH) Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

The total displaced vertexing efficiency as a function of $r_{DV}$ for the custom configuration used in this analysis. The definition of the secondary vertex efficiency can be found in defined in \cite{ATL-PHYS-PUB-2019-013}. The efficiency is shown for $\mu-\mu\mu$, $\mu-\mu e$ and $\mu-ee$ signals with $m_N=10$~GeV and $c\tau_N=10$~mm.