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

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

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

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

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

Observed exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected+1σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected-1σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected+2σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected-2σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) for m_Z'=0.5 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) for m_Z'=1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) for m_Z'=1.7 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) for m_Z'=2.1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=2.1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

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

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

Cumulative efficiencies in the merged category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_χ=1.0, sinθ=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_χ=200 GeV considering s→W(ℓν)W(qq) decays only.

Cumulative efficiencies in the resolved category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_χ=1.0, sinθ=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_χ=200 GeV considering s→W(ℓν)W(qq) decays only.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the BB cross section as a function of B quark mass under the assumption of BR(B->Wt)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the BB cross section as a function of B quark mass for an SU(2) singlet B.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of the T quark in the branching ratio plane of BR(T->Wb) versus BR(T->Ht).

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of the B quark in the branching ratio plane of BR(T->Wb) versus BR(T->Ht).

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 $Ht$.

Data minus non-Zjj backgrounds in the EW-enriched fiducial region, statistical errors included

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.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of WIMP mass m_&chi; vs mediator mass m_med determined using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs, and the other grey line gives the perturbative limit (arXiv 1603.04156). The relic density line (arXiv 1603.04156) illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of WIMP mass m_&chi; vs mediator mass m_med determined using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs, and the other grey line gives the perturbative limit (arXiv 1603.04156). The relic density line (arXiv 1603.04156) illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of WIMP mass m_&chi; vs mediator mass m_med determined using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs, and the other grey line gives the perturbative limit (arXiv 1603.04156). The relic density line (arXiv 1603.04156) illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

The 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section of the ZH process with the prompt Z&rarr; ee and Z&rarr; &mu;&mu; decays and the invisible Higgs boson decays as a function of m_H, obtained from the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. The observed and expected limits are given, as well as the &pm;1&sigma; and &pm;2&sigma; error bands on the expected limits. The signal process is only modelled for the qq initial state, and the theory uncertainties on the signal prediction are not considered.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of m_&chi; vs m_med set using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. The DM model assumes a vector mediator, a fermionic WIMP, and the coupling parameters g_q = 0.25 and g_&chi; = 1. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs. The relic density line [arXiv 1603.04156] illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of m_&chi; vs m_med set using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. The DM model assumes a vector mediator, a fermionic WIMP, and the coupling parameters g_q = 0.25 and g_&chi; = 1. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs. The relic density line [arXiv 1603.04156] illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of m_&chi; vs m_med set using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. The DM model assumes a vector mediator, a fermionic WIMP, and the coupling parameters g_q = 0.25 and g_&chi; = 1. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs. The relic density line [arXiv 1603.04156] illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of m_&chi; vs m_med set using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. The DM model assumes a vector mediator, a fermionic WIMP, and the coupling parameters g_q = 0.25 and g_&chi; = 1. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs. The relic density line [arXiv 1603.04156] illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

Limits on the WIMP and proton scattering cross section as a function of WIMP mass, obtained for simplified dark matter models with an axial-vector mediator (left) and a vector mediator (right). The solid black line shows the observed limit at the 90% confidence level from this search. The left plot incorporates the latest results from these competitive direct-search experiments, LUX [arXiv 1705.03380], PICO-2L [Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 231302], and PICO-60 [arXiv 1702.07666]. The right plot incorporates the latest results from the following experiments, CRESST-II [Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 25], CDMSlite [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 071301], PandaX-II [Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 121303], LUX [Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 021303], and XENON1T [arXiv 1705.06655].

Limits on the WIMP and proton scattering cross section as a function of WIMP mass, obtained for simplified dark matter models with an axial-vector mediator (left) and a vector mediator (right). The solid black line shows the observed limit at the 90% confidence level from this search. The left plot incorporates the latest results from these competitive direct-search experiments, LUX [arXiv 1705.03380], PICO-2L [Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 231302], and PICO-60 [arXiv 1702.07666]. The right plot incorporates the latest results from the following experiments, CRESST-II [Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 25], CDMSlite [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 071301], PandaX-II [Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 121303], LUX [Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 021303], and XENON1T [arXiv 1705.06655].

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the top quark pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

$\textbf{Distribution 1 } -$ 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.

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 $k/\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}=0.5$.

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