The measured fiducial as a function of sqrt(d3). The fiducial cross sections are measred for the charged-only particle level in the muon channel as well as the electron channel. Extrapolations to the complete fiducial phase space including charged and neutral particles are also shown for the muon channel and the electron channel.

The measured fiducial as a function of sqrt(d4). The fiducial cross sections are measred for the charged-only particle level in the muon channel as well as the electron channel. Extrapolations to the complete fiducial phase space including charged and neutral particles are also shown for the muon channel and the electron channel.

The measured fiducial as a function of sqrt(d5). The fiducial cross sections are measred for the charged-only particle level in the muon channel as well as the electron channel. Extrapolations to the complete fiducial phase space including charged and neutral particles are also shown for the muon channel and the electron channel.

The measured fiducial as a function of sqrt(d6). The fiducial cross sections are measred for the charged-only particle level in the muon channel as well as the electron channel. Extrapolations to the complete fiducial phase space including charged and neutral particles are also shown for the muon channel and the electron channel.

The measured fiducial as a function of sqrt(d7). The fiducial cross sections are measred for the charged-only particle level in the muon channel as well as the electron channel. Extrapolations to the complete fiducial phase space including charged and neutral particles are also shown for the muon channel and the electron channel.

The expected and observed 95% confidence intervals for the anomalous coupling parameters defined in the EFT frame work. WV->lvJ channel.

The expected number of events passing the final event selection in the WW/WZ->lvjj channel, in each pT(jj) bin of the signal region (SR). The expected number of background and signal events are given, together with the number of events observed in data. The numbers correspond to Figures 7(a). The BSM numbers do not include the SM WV contribution, so the SM and BSM WV numbers should be added together. The numbers correspond to the raw event yields, not divided by the bin widths. The six bins in the SR have the following bin boundaries: (100, 200, 300, 400, 600, 800, +inf) GeV.

The expected number of events passing the final event selection in the WW/WZ->lvjj channel, in each pT(jj) bin of the sideband control region (CR). The expected number of background and signal events are given, together with the number of events observed in data. The numbers correspond to Figures 6 of auxiliary material. The BSM numbers do not include the SM WV contribution, so the SM and BSM WV numbers should be added together. The numbers correspond to the raw event yields, not divided by the bin widths. The four bins in the CR have the following bin boundaries: (100, 200, 300, 700, +inf) GeV.

The expected number of events passing the final event selection in the WW/WZ->lvJ channel, in each pT(J) bin of the signal region (SR). The expected number of background and signal events are given, together with the number of events observed in data. The numbers correspond to Figures 7(b). The BSM numbers do not include the SM WV contribution, so the SM and BSM WV numbers should be added together. The numbers correspond to the raw event yields, not divided by the bin widths. The six bins in the SR have the following bin boundaries: (100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, +inf) GeV. No control region is used for the WW/WZ->lvJ channel.

Observed and expected upper limit on the cross-section for $pp \to H^{++}H^{--}$ for a combination of partial branching ratios of $B(ee) = 30\%$, $B(e \mu ) = 40\%$, and $B( \mu \mu ) = 30\%$.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}e^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}e^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to \mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to \mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Minimum observed and expected lower limit (among all partial branching ratio combinations) on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to \ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to \ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}e^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}e^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to \mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to \mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Minimum observed and expected lower limit (among all partial branching ratio combinations) on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to \ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to \ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 100%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 100%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 90%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 90%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 80%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 80%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 70%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 70%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 60%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 60%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 50%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 50%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 40%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 40%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 30%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 30%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 20%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 20%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 10%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 10%.

Expected 95% CL lower limit on the VLQ $T$ mass as a function of the decay branching ratios into $W b$ and $Ht$.

Observed 95% CL lower limit on the VLQ $T$ mass as a function of the decay branching ratios into $W b$ and $Ht$.

The measured differential as a function of aT.

The measured differential as a function of phiStarEta.

The measured differential as a function of abs(cosThetaStarEta).

The measured differential as a function of deltaPhi.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour (-1$\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.1 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour (+1$\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.1 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour (-1$\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.1 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.1 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ =1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour ($+1\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ =1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour ($-1\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ =1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ =1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving for a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.01 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour ($+1\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving for a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.01 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour ($-1\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving for a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.01 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving for a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.01 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The 90% CL exclusion limit on the $\chi$-proton scattering cross section in a simplifed model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$.

The 90% CL exclusion limit on the $\chi$-nucleon scattering cross section in a simplifed model of dark-matter production involving a vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$.

The observed and expected 95% CL limits on M* for a dimension-7 operator EFT model with a contact interaction of type $\gamma\gamma\chi\chi$ as a function of dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$.

The observed and expected limit at 95% CL on the production cross section of a $Z\gamma$ resonance as a function of its mass.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on signal strength $\mu$, the ratio of the experimental limit to the predicted signal cross section, for a simplified model of dark matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25 and $g_{\chi}$ = 1 as a function of the DM and the mediator particle masses. The bound on $\mu$ only applies for choices of couplings that yield the same kinematic distributions as the benchmark model.

Acceptance, in %, for a simplified model of dark matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$= 0.25 and $g_{\chi}$ = 1 for various $m_{\chi}$ and $m_{\textrm{med}}$ values. It is constant as a function of $m_{\chi}$ for a fixed $m_{\textrm{med}}$ in the region $m_{\textrm{med}}>2m_{\chi}$.

Fiducial reconstruction efficiencies in the three inclusive signal regions for a simplified model of dark matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$= 0.25 and $g_{\chi}$ = 1 for various $m_{\chi}$ and $m_{\textrm{med}}$ values. It is constant as a function of $m_{\chi}$ for a fixed $m_{\textrm{med}}$ in the region $m_{\textrm{med}}>2m_{\chi}$.

Distributions of the invariant mass of the Higgs boson candidates mh=m_jj with two b-tags in the SR for the third MET category that is used as input to the fit.

Distributions of the invariant mass of the Higgs boson candidates mh=m_J with two b-tags in the SR for the fourth MET category that is used as input to the fit.

Distributions of the invariant mass of the Higgs boson candidates mh=m_jj with one b-tag in the SR for the first MET category which is used as input to the fit.

Distributions of the invariant mass of the Higgs boson candidates mh=m_jj with one b-tag in the SR for the second MET category which is used as input to the fit.

Distributions of the invariant mass of the Higgs boson candidates mh=m_jj with one b-tag in the SR for the third MET category which is used as input to the fit.

ATEEC function for 850 GeV < HT2 < 900 GeV

TEEC function for 900 GeV < HT2 < 1000 GeV

ATEEC function for 900 GeV < HT2 < 1000 GeV

TEEC function for 1000 GeV < HT2 < 1100 GeV

ATEEC function for 1000 GeV < HT2 < 1100 GeV

TEEC function for 1100 GeV < HT2 < 1400 GeV

ATEEC function for 1100 GeV < HT2 < 1400 GeV

TEEC function for HT2 > 1400 GeV

ATEEC function for HT2 > 1400 GeV

alphaS(mZ) values from TEEC fits

alphaS(Q) values from TEEC fits

alphaS(mZ) values from ATEEC fits

alphaS(Q) values from ATEEC fits

$\textbf{Distribution 1 } -$ Kinematic distribution of $m_{\rm top}^{\rm reclustered}$ in tN_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 2 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bC2x_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 2 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bC2x_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 2 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bC2x_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 2 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bC2x_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 3 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in bC2x_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 3 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in bC2x_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 3 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in bC2x_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 3 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in bC2x_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 4 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in bCbv. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 4 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in bCbv. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 4 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in bCbv. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 4 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in bCbv. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 5 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in DM_low. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 5 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in DM_low. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 5 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in DM_low. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 5 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in DM_low. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 6 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in DM_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 6 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in DM_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 6 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in DM_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 6 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in DM_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 7 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_low region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 7 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_low region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 7 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_low region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 7 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_low region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 8 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_med region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 8 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_med region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 8 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_med region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 8 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_med region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 9 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_high region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 9 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_high region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 9 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_high region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 9 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_high region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 10 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in tN_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 10 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in tN_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 10 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in tN_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 10 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in tN_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 11 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bWN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 11 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bWN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 11 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bWN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 11 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bWN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 12 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bffN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 12 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bffN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 12 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bffN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 12 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bffN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 13 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 13 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 13 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 13 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 14 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 14 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 14 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 14 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 15 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 15 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 15 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 15 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Selected SR 1 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{Selected SR 1 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{Selected SR 1 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{Selected SR 1 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Selected SR 2 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{Selected SR 2 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{Selected SR 2 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{Selected SR 2 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Selected SR 3 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Selected SR 3 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Selected SR 3 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Selected SR 3 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Selected SR 4 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Selected SR 4 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Selected SR 4 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Selected SR 4 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 6 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 6 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 6 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 6 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 7 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 7 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 7 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 7 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 8 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 8 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 8 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 8 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 10 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 10 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 10 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 10 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 11 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 11 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 11 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 11 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 12 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 12 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 12 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 12 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Selected SR 13 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Selected SR 13 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Selected SR 13 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Selected SR 13 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.<br><b>Note:</b> As no observed exclusion is found for this model, the contour is empty.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.<br><b>Note:</b> As no observed exclusion is found for this model, the contour is empty.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.<br><b>Note:</b> As no observed exclusion is found for this model, the contour is empty.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.<br><b>Note:</b> As no observed exclusion is found for this model, the contour is empty.

$\textbf{Selected SR 14 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.

$\textbf{Selected SR 14 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.

$\textbf{Selected SR 14 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.

$\textbf{Selected SR 14 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 1 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 1 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 1 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 1 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 2 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 2 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 2 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 2 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 3 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 3 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 3 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 3 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 4 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 4 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 4 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 4 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 1 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 1 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 1 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 1 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 2 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 2 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 2 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 2 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 3 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu < 0

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 3 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu < 0

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 3 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu < 0

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 3 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu < 0

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 4 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu > 0

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 4 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu > 0

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 4 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu > 0

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 4 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu > 0

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 5 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 5 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 5 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 5 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 6 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 6 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 6 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 6 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 7 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 7 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 7 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 7 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 8 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 8 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 8 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 8 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 9 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 9 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 9 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 9 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 10 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 10 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 10 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 10 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 11 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the simplified model with m(STOP) - m(CHARGINO) = 10 GeV.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 11 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the simplified model with m(STOP) - m(CHARGINO) = 10 GeV.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 11 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the simplified model with m(STOP) - m(CHARGINO) = 10 GeV.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 11 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the simplified model with m(STOP) - m(CHARGINO) = 10 GeV.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 12 } -$ Observed 95% upper cross-section limit in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 12 } -$ Observed 95% upper cross-section limit in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 12 } -$ Observed 95% upper cross-section limit in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 12 } -$ Observed 95% upper cross-section limit in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 13 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 13 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 13 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 13 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 14 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 14 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 14 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 14 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{Cutflow 1 } -$ Cutflow for tN_med for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 1 } -$ Cutflow for tN_med for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 1 } -$ Cutflow for tN_med for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 1 } -$ Cutflow for tN_med for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 2 } -$ Cutflow for tN_high for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (1000, 1) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 2 } -$ Cutflow for tN_high for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (1000, 1) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 2 } -$ Cutflow for tN_high for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (1000, 1) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 2 } -$ Cutflow for tN_high for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (1000, 1) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 3 } -$ Cutflow for bWN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 230) GeV in bWN. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 3 } -$ Cutflow for bWN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 230) GeV in bWN. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 3 } -$ Cutflow for bWN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 230) GeV in bWN. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 3 } -$ Cutflow for bWN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 230) GeV in bWN. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 4 } -$ Cutflow for bffN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 4 } -$ Cutflow for bffN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 4 } -$ Cutflow for bffN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 4 } -$ Cutflow for bffN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 5 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_diag for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (737, 500, 250) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 5 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_diag for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (737, 500, 250) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 5 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_diag for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (737, 500, 250) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 5 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_diag for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (737, 500, 250) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 6 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_med for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (842, 300, 150) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 6 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_med for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (842, 300, 150) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 6 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_med for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (842, 300, 150) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 6 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_med for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (842, 300, 150) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 7 } -$ Cutflow for the simplified signal model with $\Delta m( \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = 10 GeV, considering $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (700, 690, 1). The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 7 } -$ Cutflow for the simplified signal model with $\Delta m( \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = 10 GeV, considering $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (700, 690, 1). The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 7 } -$ Cutflow for the simplified signal model with $\Delta m( \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = 10 GeV, considering $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (700, 690, 1). The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 7 } -$ Cutflow for the simplified signal model with $\Delta m( \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = 10 GeV, considering $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (700, 690, 1). The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 8 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_diag for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (400, 355, 350) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 8 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_diag for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (400, 355, 350) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 8 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_diag for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (400, 355, 350) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 8 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_diag for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (400, 355, 350) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 9 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_med for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 205, 200) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 9 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_med for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 205, 200) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 9 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_med for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 205, 200) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 9 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_med for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 205, 200) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 10 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_high for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (800, 155, 150) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 10 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_high for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (800, 155, 150) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 10 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_high for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (800, 155, 150) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 10 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_high for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (800, 155, 150) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 11 } -$ Cutflow for DM_high for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (300, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 11 } -$ Cutflow for DM_high for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (300, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 11 } -$ Cutflow for DM_high for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (300, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 11 } -$ Cutflow for DM_high for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (300, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 12 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 12 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 12 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 12 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 13 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low_loose for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 13 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low_loose for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 13 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low_loose for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 13 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low_loose for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Acceptance 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.

$\textbf{Acceptance 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.

$\textbf{Acceptance 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.

$\textbf{Acceptance 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.

$\textbf{Efficiency 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.

$\textbf{Efficiency 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.

$\textbf{Efficiency 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.

$\textbf{Efficiency 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.

$\textbf{Acceptance 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.

$\textbf{Acceptance 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.

$\textbf{Acceptance 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.

$\textbf{Acceptance 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.

$\textbf{Efficiency 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.

$\textbf{Efficiency 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.

$\textbf{Efficiency 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.

$\textbf{Efficiency 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.

$\textbf{Acceptance 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.

The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The N_s calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The N_s values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The N_s values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The N_s values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

Reconstructed mtb distribution in data and for the background after the fit to the data in the signal region SR2. The statistical uncertainty on data points is calculated using assymetric Poisson confidence intervals.

Reconstructed mtb distribution in data and for the background after the fit to the data in the signal region SR3. The statistical uncertainty on data points is calculated using assymetric Poisson confidence intervals.

Reconstructed mtb distribution in data and for the background after the fit to the data in the validation region VR. The statistical uncertainty on data points is calculated using assymetric Poisson confidence intervals.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA350 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA450 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA450 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA550 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA550 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRB signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRB signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRC signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRC signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L- best expected signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L- best expected signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA300-2j signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA300-2j signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA450 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA450 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA600 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA600 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA750 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA750 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRB signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRB signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L- best expected signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L- best expected signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA350 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA350 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA450 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA450 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA550 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA550 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRB signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRB signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRC signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRC signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L- best expected signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L- best expected signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA300-2j signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA300-2j signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA450 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA450 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA600 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA600 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA750 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA750 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRB signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRB signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L- best expected signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L- best expected signal region.

b1L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.

b1L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.

b0L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.

b0L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.

combined signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.

combined signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.

b0L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino.

b0L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA550 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA550 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA550 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA550 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRC for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRC for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRC for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRC for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA300-2j for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA300-2j for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA300-2j for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA300-2j for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA600 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA600 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA600 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA600 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA750 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA750 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA750 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA750 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for best b1L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for best b1L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for best b1L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for best b1L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for A-LowMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for A-LowMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for A-LowMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for A-LowMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for A-HighMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for A-HighMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for A-HighMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for A-HighMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for B combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for B combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for B combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for B combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for best combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for best combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for best combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for best combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

$m_{\mathrm{CT}}$ distribution in b0L-SRA. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.

$m_{\mathrm{CT}}$ distribution in b0L-SRA. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.

$\mathrm{min[m_{T}(jet_{1-4}, E_{T}^{miss})]}$ distribution in b0L-SRB. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.

$\mathrm{min[m_{T}(jet_{1-4}, E_{T}^{miss})]}$ distribution in b0L-SRB. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.

${\cal A}$ distribution in b0L-SRC. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.

${\cal A}$ distribution in b0L-SRC. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.

$\mathrm{m_{bb}}$ distribution in b1L-SRA300-2j. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.

$\mathrm{m_{bb}}$ distribution in b1L-SRA300-2j. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.

$\mathrm{m_{eff}}$ distribution in b1L-SRA. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.

$\mathrm{m_{eff}}$ distribution in b1L-SRA. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.

$\mathrm{m_{T}}$ distribution in b1L-SRB. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.

$\mathrm{m_{T}}$ distribution in b1L-SRB. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b0L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b0L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA350 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA350 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA550 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA550 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRC as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRC as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b0L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b0L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA350 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA350 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b1L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b1L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA300-2j as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA300-2j as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA600 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA600 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA750 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA750 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for A-LowMass combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for A-LowMass combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for A-HighMass combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for A-HighMass combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for B combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL for B combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.

Cutflow table in b0L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 1 TeV decaying into a 1 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.

Cutflow table in b0L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 1 TeV decaying into a 1 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.

Cutflow table in b0L-SRB for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 450 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.

Cutflow table in b0L-SRB for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 450 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.

Cutflow table in b0L-SRC for a pair produced bottom squark of 450 GeV decaying into a 430 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.

Cutflow table in b0L-SRC for a pair produced bottom squark of 450 GeV decaying into a 430 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.

Cutflow table in b1L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.

Cutflow table in b1L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.

Cutflow table in b1L-SRA300-2j for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.

Cutflow table in b1L-SRA300-2j for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.

Cutflow table in b0L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.

Cutflow table in b0L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.

Jet multiplicity distributions in control region CR$^{3\ell 1b}_{VV}$, after normalising the $t\bar{t}Z$ and multi-boson background processes via the simultaneous fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty in the background prediction. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.

Jet multiplicity distributions in control regions CR$^{1\ell 4b}_{t\bar{t},A}$, after normalising the $t\bar{t}$ background process via the simultaneous fit described in Section 5. The $t\bar{t}$ background normalisation is constrained to the data observation for jet multiplicity values above the requirements shown in Table 6. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.

Jet multiplicity distributions in control regions CR$^{1\ell 4b}_{t\bar{t},A}$, after normalising the $t\bar{t}$ background process via the simultaneous fit described in Section 5. The $t\bar{t}$ background normalisation is constrained to the data observation for jet multiplicity values above the requirements shown in Table 6. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.

Jet multiplicity distributions in control regions CR$^{1\ell 4b}_{t\bar{t},B}$, after normalising the $t\bar{t}$ background process via the simultaneous fit described in Section 5. The $t\bar{t}$ background normalisation is constrained to the data observation for jet multiplicity values above the requirements shown in Table 6. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.

Jet multiplicity distributions in control regions CR$^{1\ell 4b}_{t\bar{t},B}$, after normalising the $t\bar{t}$ background process via the simultaneous fit described in Section 5. The $t\bar{t}$ background normalisation is constrained to the data observation for jet multiplicity values above the requirements shown in Table 6. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.

Jet multiplicity distributions in control regions CR$^{1\ell 4b}_{t\bar{t},C}$, after normalising the $t\bar{t}$ background process via the simultaneous fit described in Section 5. The $t\bar{t}$ background normalisation is constrained to the data observation for jet multiplicity values above the requirements shown in Table 6. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.

Jet multiplicity distributions in control regions CR$^{1\ell 4b}_{t\bar{t},C}$, after normalising the $t\bar{t}$ background process via the simultaneous fit described in Section 5. The $t\bar{t}$ background normalisation is constrained to the data observation for jet multiplicity values above the requirements shown in Table 6. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.

Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{3\ell 1b}_A$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.

Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{3\ell 1b}_A$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.

Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{3\ell 1b}_B$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.

Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{3\ell 1b}_B$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.

Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{3\ell 1b}_C$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.

Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{3\ell 1b}_C$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.

Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.

Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.

Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.

Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.

Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.

Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the mass of the $\tilde{t}_1$ for a fixed $(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0$ GeV, assuming $\text{BR}(\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to Z\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0.5$ and $\text{BR}(\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to h\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0.5$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the mass of the $\tilde{t}_1$ for a fixed $(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0$ GeV, assuming $\text{BR}(\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to Z\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0.5$ and $\text{BR}(\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to h\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0.5$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the mass of the $\tilde{t}_1$ for a fixed $(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0$ GeV, assuming $\text{BR}(\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to Z\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0.5$ and $\text{BR}(\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to h\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0.5$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the mass of the $\tilde{t}_1$ for a fixed $(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0$ GeV, assuming $\text{BR}(\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to Z\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0.5$ and $\text{BR}(\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to h\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0.5$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the masses of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, for a fixed $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 180$ GeV and assuming a $\text{BR}(\tilde{t}_2 \to Z\tilde{t}_1) = 1$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the masses of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, for a fixed $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 180$ GeV and assuming a $\text{BR}(\tilde{t}_2 \to Z\tilde{t}_1) = 1$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the masses of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, for a fixed $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 180$ GeV and assuming a $\text{BR}(\tilde{t}_2 \to Z\tilde{t}_1) = 1$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the masses of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, for a fixed $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 180$ GeV and assuming a $\text{BR}(\tilde{t}_2 \to Z\tilde{t}_1) = 1$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the masses of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, for a fixed $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 180$ GeV and assuming a $\text{BR}(\tilde{t}_2 \to h\tilde{t}_1) = 1$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the masses of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, for a fixed $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 180$ GeV and assuming a $\text{BR}(\tilde{t}_2 \to h\tilde{t}_1) = 1$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the masses of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, for a fixed $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 180$ GeV and assuming a $\text{BR}(\tilde{t}_2 \to h\tilde{t}_1) = 1$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the masses of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, for a fixed $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 180$ GeV and assuming a $\text{BR}(\tilde{t}_2 \to h\tilde{t}_1) = 1$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $3\ell 1b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=600$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=250$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $3\ell 1b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=600$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=250$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $3\ell 1b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=600$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=250$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $3\ell 1b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=600$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=250$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $1\ell 4b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=600$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=250$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $1\ell 4b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=600$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=250$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. for the $3\ell 1b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=650$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=200$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. for the $3\ell 1b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=650$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=200$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $3\ell 1b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=650$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=200$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $3\ell 1b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=650$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=200$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $1\ell 4b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=650$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=200$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $1\ell 4b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=650$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=200$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $1\ell 4b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=650$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=200$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $1\ell 4b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=650$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=200$ GeV.

Background fit results for the control and validation regions in the 1$\ell$4$b$ selection. The nominal predictions from MC simulation are given for comparison for the $t\bar{t}$ background, which is normalised to data. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $tZ$, and $tWZ$ production. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated and do not necessarily add in quadrature to the total systematic uncertainty.

Background fit results for the control and validation regions in the 1$\ell$4$b$ selection. The nominal predictions from MC simulation are given for comparison for the $t\bar{t}$ background, which is normalised to data. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $tZ$, and $tWZ$ production. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated and do not necessarily add in quadrature to the total systematic uncertainty.

Summary of the main systematic uncertainties and their impact (in %) on the total SM background prediction in each of the signal regions studied. The total systematic uncertainty can be different from the sum in quadrature of individual sources due to the correlations between them resulting from the fit to the data. The quoted theoretical uncertainties include modelling and cross-section uncertainties.

Summary of the main systematic uncertainties and their impact (in %) on the total SM background prediction in each of the signal regions studied. The total systematic uncertainty can be different from the sum in quadrature of individual sources due to the correlations between them resulting from the fit to the data. The quoted theoretical uncertainties include modelling and cross-section uncertainties.

Observed and expected numbers of events the three 3$\ell$1$b$ Signal regions. The nominal predictions from MC simulation are given for comparison for those backgrounds, $t\bar{t} Z$, multi-boson that are normalised to data in dedicated control regions. For SR$^{3\ell 1b}_A$, SR$^{3\ell 1b}_B$ and SR$^{3\ell 1b}_C$, the "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Signal model-independent 95% CL upper limits on the visible BSM cross-section ($\sigma_{\mathrm{vis}}$), the visible number of signal events ($S^{95}_{\rm obs}$), the number of signal events ($S^{95}_{\rm exp}$) given the expected number of background events (and $\pm1\sigma$ variations of the expected background), and the discovery $p$-value ($p(s = 0)$), all calculated with pseudo-experiments, are also shown for each signal region.

Observed and expected numbers of events the three 3$\ell$1$b$ Signal regions. The nominal predictions from MC simulation are given for comparison for those backgrounds, $t\bar{t} Z$, multi-boson that are normalised to data in dedicated control regions. For SR$^{3\ell 1b}_A$, SR$^{3\ell 1b}_B$ and SR$^{3\ell 1b}_C$, the "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Signal model-independent 95% CL upper limits on the visible BSM cross-section ($\sigma_{\mathrm{vis}}$), the visible number of signal events ($S^{95}_{\rm obs}$), the number of signal events ($S^{95}_{\rm exp}$) given the expected number of background events (and $\pm1\sigma$ variations of the expected background), and the discovery $p$-value ($p(s = 0)$), all calculated with pseudo-experiments, are also shown for each signal region.

Observed and expected numbers of events in the three 1$\ell$4$b$ signal regions. The nominal predictions from MC simulation are given for comparison for those backgrounds, $t\bar{t}$, are normalised to data in dedicated control regions. For SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$, SR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ and SR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$, the "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $tZ$, and $tWZ$ production. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Signal model-independent 95% CL upper limits on the visible BSM cross-section ($\sigma_{\mathrm{vis}}$), the visible number of signal events ($S^{95}_{\rm obs}$), the number of signal events ($S^{95}_{\rm exp}$) given the expected number of background events (and $\pm1\sigma$ variations of the expected background), and the discovery $p$-value ($p(s = 0)$), all calculated with pseudo-experiments, are also shown for each signal region.

Observed and expected numbers of events in the three 1$\ell$4$b$ signal regions. The nominal predictions from MC simulation are given for comparison for those backgrounds, $t\bar{t}$, are normalised to data in dedicated control regions. For SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$, SR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ and SR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$, the "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $tZ$, and $tWZ$ production. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Signal model-independent 95% CL upper limits on the visible BSM cross-section ($\sigma_{\mathrm{vis}}$), the visible number of signal events ($S^{95}_{\rm obs}$), the number of signal events ($S^{95}_{\rm exp}$) given the expected number of background events (and $\pm1\sigma$ variations of the expected background), and the discovery $p$-value ($p(s = 0)$), all calculated with pseudo-experiments, are also shown for each signal region.

Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for the $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow h\tilde{t}_1$ models with $\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits 1 = A, 2 = B, 3 = C.

Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for the $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow h\tilde{t}_1$ models with $\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits 1 = A, 2 = B, 3 = C.

Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for the $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow Z\tilde{t}_1$ models with $\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits 1 = A, 2 = B, 3 = C.

Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for the $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow Z\tilde{t}_1$ models with $\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits 1 = A, 2 = B, 3 = C.

Jet multiplicity distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.

Jet multiplicity distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.

Jet multiplicity distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.

Jet multiplicity distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.

Jet multiplicity distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.

Jet multiplicity distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.

E$^{T}_\text{miss}$ distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.

E$^{T}_\text{miss}$ distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.

E$^{T}_\text{miss}$ distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.

E$^{T}_\text{miss}$ distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.

$E^{T}_\text{miss}$ distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.

$E^{T}_\text{miss}$ distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.

Jet multiplicity for events with at least 3 jets, one $b$-tagged jets for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. In order to enhance the contribution from fake or non-prompt leptons from $t\bar{t}$ events, the events are required to have at least one different flavour lepton pair and no same flavour pair with opposite charge.

Jet multiplicity for events with at least 3 jets, one $b$-tagged jets for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. In order to enhance the contribution from fake or non-prompt leptons from $t\bar{t}$ events, the events are required to have at least one different flavour lepton pair and no same flavour pair with opposite charge.

$E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events with at least 3 jets, one $b$-tagged jets for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. In order to enhance the contribution from fake or non-prompt leptons from $t\bar{t}$ events, the events are required to have at least one different flavour lepton pair and no same flavour pair with opposite charge.

$E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events with at least 3 jets, one $b$-tagged jets for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. In order to enhance the contribution from fake or non-prompt leptons from $t\bar{t}$ events, the events are required to have at least one different flavour lepton pair and no same flavour pair with opposite charge.

$p_{\rm T}^{\ell\ell}$ for events with at least 3 jets, one $b$-tagged jets for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. In order to enhance the contribution from fake or non-prompt leptons from $t\bar{t}$ events, the events are required to have at least one different flavour lepton pair and no same flavour pair with opposite charge.

$p_{\rm T}^{\ell\ell}$ for events with at least 3 jets, one $b$-tagged jets for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. In order to enhance the contribution from fake or non-prompt leptons from $t\bar{t}$ events, the events are required to have at least one different flavour lepton pair and no same flavour pair with opposite charge.

Distribution of $m_{bb}$ for events passing all the signal selection requirements, except that on $m_{bb}$, for SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.

Distribution of $m_{bb}$ for events passing all the signal selection requirements, except that on $m_{bb}$, for SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.

Upper limits on cross-sections (in fb) at 95% CL for $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production with $\tilde{t}_1 \to t \tilde{\chi}^0_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to \tilde{\chi}^0_1 h$ with 50% BR and $\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to \tilde{\chi}^0_1 Z$ with 50% BR

Upper limits on cross-sections (in fb) at 95% CL for $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production with $\tilde{t}_1 \to t \tilde{\chi}^0_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to \tilde{\chi}^0_1 h$ with 50% BR and $\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to \tilde{\chi}^0_1 Z$ with 50% BR

Upper limits on cross-sections (in fb) at 95% CL for $\tilde{t}_2$ pair production with $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ with $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$

Upper limits on cross-sections (in fb) at 95% CL for $\tilde{t}_2$ pair production with $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ with $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$

Upper limits on cross-sections (in fb) at 95% CL for $\tilde{t}_2$ pair production with $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$ with $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$

Upper limits on cross-sections (in fb) at 95% CL for $\tilde{t}_2$ pair production with $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$ with $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$

SR$^{3\ell 1b}_A$ acceptance for each signal model.

SR$^{3\ell 1b}_A$ acceptance for each signal model.

SR$^{3\ell 1b}_B$ acceptance for each signal model.

SR$^{3\ell 1b}_B$ acceptance for each signal model.

SR$^{3\ell 1b}_C$ acceptance for each signal model.

SR$^{3\ell 1b}_C$ acceptance for each signal model.

SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ acceptance for each signal model

SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ acceptance for each signal model

SR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ acceptance for each signal model

SR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ acceptance for each signal model

SR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ acceptance for each signal model

SR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ acceptance for each signal model

SR$^{3\ell 1b}_A$ efficiency for each signal model

SR$^{3\ell 1b}_A$ efficiency for each signal model

SR$^{3\ell 1b}_B$ efficiency for each signal model

SR$^{3\ell 1b}_B$ efficiency for each signal model

SR$^{3\ell 1b}_C$ efficiency for each signal model

SR$^{3\ell 1b}_C$ efficiency for each signal model

SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ efficiency for each signal model

SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ efficiency for each signal model

SR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ efficiency for each signal model

SR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ efficiency for each signal model

SR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ efficiency for each signal model

SR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ efficiency for each signal model

Number of signal events selected at different stages for some scenarios in the $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow h\tilde{t}_1$ with $\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ model.

Number of signal events selected at different stages for some scenarios in the $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow h\tilde{t}_1$ with $\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ model.

Number of signal events selected at different stages for some scenarios in the $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow Z\tilde{t}_1$ with $\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ model.

Number of signal events selected at different stages for some scenarios in the $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow Z\tilde{t}_1$ with $\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ model.

Cutflow table for a pair produced coloron of 1500 GeV decaying into two quarks.

The observed number of data, background and top squark signal events in each of the signal regions of the inclusive selection

The observed number of data, background and coloron signal events in each of the signal regions of the inclusive selection

The observed number of data, background and top squark signal events in each of the signal regions of the b-tagged selection

Signal acceptance and efficiency (in %) as a function of M(STOP), before mass windows

Signal acceptance (in %) and efficiency as a function of M(STOP), after mass windows

Signal acceptance and efficiency (in %) as a function of M(RHO), before mass windows

Signal acceptance and efficiency (in %) as a function of M(RHO), after mass windows

Signal acceptance (in %) and efficiency as a function of M(STOP), before mass windows

Signal acceptance (in %) and efficiency as a function of M(STOP), after mass windows

Cross section excluded at 95% CL as a function of the top squark mass, for a pair produced top squark with decays into a pair of light-quarks.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL as a function of the cooron mass, for a pair produced coloron with decays into a pair of light-quarks.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL as a function of the top squark mass, for a pair produced top squark with decays into a b- and an s-quark.

Selection acceptance times efficiency for VBF H -> ZZ -> vvqq as a function of the Higgs boson mass, combining the HP and LP signal regions.

Selection acceptance times efficiency for DY W' -> ZW -> llqq as a function of the W' mass, combining the HP and LP signal regions of the ZV -> llJ selection and the b-tagged and untagged regions of the ZV -> lljj selection.

Selection acceptance times efficiency for VBF W' -> ZW -> llqq as a function of the W' mass, combining the HP and LP signal regions of the ZV -> llJ selection and the b-tagged and untagged regions of the ZV -> lljj selection.

Selection acceptance times efficiency for DY W' -> ZW -> vvqq as a function of the W' mass, combining the HP and LP signal regions.

Selection acceptance times efficiency for VBF W' -> ZW -> vvqq as a function of the W' mass, combining the HP and LP signal regions.

Selection acceptance times efficiency for G* -> ZZ -> llqq as a function of the W' mass, combining the HP and LP signal regions of the ZV -> llJ selection and the b-tagged and untagged regions of the ZV -> lljj selection.

Selection acceptance times efficiency for G* -> ZZ -> vvqq as a function of the W' mass, combining the HP and LP signal regions.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($H\to ZZ$) at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV for ggF production of a heavy Higgs boson as a function of its mass, combining $\ell\ell qq$ and $\nu\nu qq$ searches.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($H\to ZZ$) at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV for VBF production of a heavy Higgs boson as a function of its mass, combining $\ell\ell qq$ and $\nu\nu qq$ searches.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($W'\to ZW$) at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV for Drell-Yan production of a $W'$ boson in the HVT model as a function of its mass, combining $\ell\ell qq$ and $\nu\nu qq$ searches.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($W'\to ZW$) at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV for VBF production of a $W'$ boson in the HVT model as a function of its mass, combining $\ell\ell qq$ and $\nu\nu qq$ searches.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($G_{\mathrm{KK}}\to ZZ$) at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV for the production of a bulk RS graviton with couplings of $k/\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}=1$.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($G_{\mathrm{KK}}\to ZZ$) at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV for the production of a bulk RS graviton with couplings of $k/\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}=0.5$.

Upper 95% CL limits on the Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two electrons as a function of Z' pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two muons as a function of Z' pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons as a function of Z' pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the dielectron channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Expected limits in the dielectron channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the dielectron channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Observed limits in the dielectron channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the dimuon channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Expected limits in the dimuon channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the dimuon channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Observed limits in the dimuon channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the combined dilepton channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Expected limits in the dilepton channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the dilepton channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Observed limits in the dilepton channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio to a photon and a quark or gluon for the ADD model. The limits are placed as a function of M_th. The calculation is performed using ensemble tests for masses in the search range every 500 GeV.

Fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the ADD model as a function of M_th.

Fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the RS1 model as a function of M_th.

The $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ distribution in the multi-jet background VR-F for SR-lowMass. The stacked histograms show the contribution of the non-multi-jet SM backgrounds from MC simulation. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the ABCD method. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The last bin in the left panels includes the overflow events.

The $E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ distribution in the multi-jet background VR-F for SR-highMass. The stacked histograms show the contribution of the non-multi-jet SM backgrounds from MC simulation. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the ABCD method. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The last bin in the left panels includes the overflow events.

The $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ distribution in the multi-jet background VR-F for SR-highMass. The stacked histograms show the contribution of the non-multi-jet SM backgrounds from MC simulation. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the ABCD method. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The last bin in the left panels includes the overflow events.

The $E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ distribution in the $W$-VR region. The SM backgrounds other than multi-jet production are estimated from MC simulation. The contribution of $W$+jets events is scaled to the fit result. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the $OS--SS$ method. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the SM background estimate. The last bin includes the overflow events.

The $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ distribution in the $W$-VR region. The SM backgrounds other than multi-jet production are estimated from MC simulation. The contribution of $W$+jets events is scaled to the fit result. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the $OS--SS$ method. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the SM background estimate. The last bin includes the overflow events.

The $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ distribution in the $Z$-VR region. The SM backgrounds other than multi-jet production are estimated from MC simulation. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the ABCD method, using CRs obtained with the same technique used for the SRs. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the SM background estimate. The last bin includes the overflow events except for the upper left panel.

The $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ distribution in the Top-VR region. The SM backgrounds other than multi-jet production are estimated from MC simulation. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the ABCD method, using CRs obtained with the same technique used for the SRs. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the SM background estimate. The last bin includes the overflow events except for the upper left panel.

The $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ distribution in the $WW$-VR region. The SM backgrounds other than multi-jet production are estimated from MC simulation. The multi-jet contribution is negligible and not considered. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the SM background estimate. The last bin includes the overflow events except for the upper left panel.

The $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ distribution in the $ZZ$-VR region. The SM backgrounds other than multi-jet production are estimated from MC simulation. The multi-jet contribution is negligible and not considered. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the SM background estimate. The last bin includes the overflow events except for the upper left panel.

The $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ distribution before the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ requirement is applied for SR-lowMass region, where the arrow indicates the position of the cut in the signal region. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the ABCD method. The contributions of multi-jet and $W$+jets events are scaled with the corresponding normalisation factors. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the total SM background estimate. The last bin includes the overflow events.

The $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ distribution before the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ requirement is applied for SR-highMass region, where the arrow indicates the position of the cut in the signal region. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the ABCD method. The contributions of multi-jet and $W$+jets events are scaled with the corresponding normalisation factors. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the total SM background estimate. The last bin includes the overflow events.

Observed exclusion contours in chargino pair production model.

Expected exclusion contours in chargino pair production model.

Observed exclusion contours in chargino chargino and chargino neutralino production model.

Expected exclusion contours in chargino chargino and chargino neutralino production model.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the chargino and neutralino masses in chargino chargino pair production.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the chargino and neutralino masses in chargino chargino and chargino neutralino pair production.

Best signal region used in chargino chargino and chargino neutralino pair production, H is corresponding to SR-highMass and L is SR-lowMass.

Observed CLs significance in variable-x model of chargino chargino pair production for compressed mass scenario.

Expected CLs significance in variable-x model of chargino chargino pair production for compressed mass scenario.

Observed CLs significance in variable-x model of chargino chargino pair production for large mass splitting scenario.

Expected CLs significance in variable-x model of chargino chargino pair production for large mass splitting scenario.

Observed CLs significance in variable-x model of chargino chargino and chargino neutralino pair production for compressed mass scenario.

Expected CLs significance in variable-x model of chargino chargino and chargino neutralino pair production for compressed mass scenario.

Observed CLs significance in variable-x model of chargino chargino and chargino neutralino pair production for large mass splitting scenario.

Expected CLs significance in variable-x model of chargino chargino and chargino neutralino pair production for large mass splitting scenario.

Acceptance in SR-lowMass for CHARGINO1 NEUTRALINO2 production.

Acceptance in SR-highMass for CHARGINO1 NEUTRALINO2 production.

Acceptance in SR-highMass for CHARGINO1 CHARGINO1 production.

Efficiency in SR-lowMass for CHARGINO1 NEUTRALINO2 production.

Efficiency in SR-highMass for CHARGINO1 NEUTRALINO2 production.

Efficiency in SR-highMass for CHARGINO1 CHARGINO1 production.

Cut flow for the reference point 1 (CHARGINO1 NEUTRALINO2 production) in SR-lowMass. The column labelled $N_{raw}$ shows the results for the generated number of events, while $N_{weighted}$ includes all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only. At the step ``at least two medium tau candidates, matched to trigger objects' the following requirements are applied: the event is recorded using either the asymmetric di-tau trigger or the di-tau+$E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ trigger, and the two matched tau candidates must be of medium quality. If the event has been selected by the asymmetric di-tau trigger, the two tau candidates are required to have ${p}_{\mathrm{T}, \tau_1}>$ 95 GeV and ${p}_{\mathrm{T}, \tau_2}>$ 65 GeV. If the event has been selected by the di-tau+$E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ trigger, the two tau candidates are required to have ${p}_{\mathrm{T}, \tau_1}>$ 50 GeV, ${p}_{\mathrm{T}, \tau_2}>$ 40 GeV, and $E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ > 150 GeV is required.}

Cut flow for the reference point 2 (CHARGINO1 CHARGINO1 production) in SR-highMass. The column labelled $N_{raw}$ shows the results for the generated number of events, while $N_{weighted}$ includes all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only. At the step ``at least two medium tau candidates, matched to trigger objects' the following requirements are applied: the event is recorded using either the asymmetric di-tau trigger or the di-tau+$E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ trigger, and the two matched tau candidates must be of medium quality. If the event has been selected by the asymmetric di-tau trigger, the two tau candidates are required to have ${p}_{\mathrm{T}, \tau_1}>$ 95 GeV and ${p}_{\mathrm{T}, \tau_2}>$ 65 GeV. If the event has been selected by the di-tau+$E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ trigger, the two tau candidates are required to have ${p}_{\mathrm{T}, \tau_1}>$ 50 GeV, ${p}_{\mathrm{T}, \tau_2}>$ 40 GeV, and $E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ > 150 GeV is required.}

The number of events as a function of the dijet invariant mass, compared to background prediction from fit and corresponding uncertainties, in the region defined by |y*|<1.2 optimized for the W* search.

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [3.4-3.7] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [3.4-3.7] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [3.7-4.0] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [3.7-4.0] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.0-4.3] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.0-4.3] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.3-4.6] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.3-4.6] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.6-4.9] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.6-4.9] TeV dijet invariant mass region