Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent for the measured fiducial cross section times leptonic branching ratio for Z/gamma* production in the Z/gamma* -> mu+mu- final state at 13TeV.

Measured fiducial cross section times leptonic branching ratio for Z/gamma* production in the combined Z/gamma* -> l+l- (l = e, mu) final state.

Measured total cross section times leptonic branching ratio for Z/gamma* production in the combined Z/gamma* -> l+ l- (l = e, mu) final state.

Measured total cross-section for ttbar events using e-mu events with b-tagged jets.

Correlation coefficients amongst the combined (Z/gamma^* -> l+ l-) where (l = e, mu) fiducial cross section and ttbar total cross section at 13, 8, and 7TeV.

Correlation coefficients amongst the combined (Z/gamma^* -> l+ l-) where (l = e, mu) fiducial cross section and ttbar total cross section at 13, 8, and 7TeV, omitting the common normalisation uncertainty due to the luminosity calibration and beam energy.

Z-boson and ttbar production cross-section single ratios at 13, 8, 7TeV. The beam-energy uncertainty, which largely cancels in the ratios, is included in the systematic uncertainty. In the first column, the total (TOT) cross sections are used for both numerator and denominator. In the second column, the total cross section is used for the numerator while the fiducial (FID) cross section is used for the denominator. In the third column, the fiducial cross sections are used for both numerator and denominator. Apart for the MZ requirement, the kinematic fiducial requirements listed below apply only to the fiducial cross sections. The luminosity uncertainty almost entirely cancels in some of the ratio measurements.

Z-boson and ttbar production cross-section double ratios at 13, 8, 7TeV. The beam-energy uncertainty, which largely cancels in the ratios, is included in the systematic uncertainty. In the first column, the total (TOT) cross sections are used for both ttbar and Z processes. In the second column, the total cross section is used for ttbar while the fiducial (FID) cross section is used for Z. In the third column, the fiducial cross sections are used for both ttbar and Z. Apart for the MZ requirement, the kinematic fiducial requirements listed below apply only to the fiducial cross sections.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jl. For signal, a squark direct decay model with $m(\tilde{q})=800$ GeV and $m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)=400$ GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jm. For signal, a gluino direct decay model with $m(\tilde{g})=750$ GeV and $m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)=660$ GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jt. For signal, a squark direct decay model with $m(\tilde{q})=1200$ GeV and $m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)=0$ GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4jt. For signal, a gluino direct decay model with $m(\tilde{g})=1400$ GeV and $m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)=0$ GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR5j. For signal, a gluino one-step decay model with $m(\tilde{g})=1265$ GeV, $m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^{\pm })=945$ GeV and $m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)=625$ GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6jm. For signal, a gluino one-step decay model with $m(\tilde{g})=1265$ GeV, $m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^{\pm })=945$ GeV and $m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)=625$ GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6jt. For signal, a gluino one-step decay model with $m(\tilde{g})=1385$ GeV, $m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^{\pm })=705$ GeV and $m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)=25$ GeV is shown.

Expected limit at 95% CL for squark direct decay model grid.

Expected limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for squark direct decay model grid.

Expected limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for squark direct decay model grid.

Observed limits at 95% CL for squark direct decay model grid.

Observed limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for squark direct decay model grid.

Observed limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for squark direct decay model grid.

Expected limit at 95% CL for gluino direct decay model grid.

Expected limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino direct decay model grid.

Expected limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino direct decay model grid.

Observed limits at 95% CL for gluino direct decay model grid.

Observed limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino direct decay model grid.

Observed limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino direct decay model grid.

Expected limit at 95% CL for gluino one-step decay model grid.

Expected limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino one-step decay model grid.

Expected limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino one-step decay model grid.

Observed limits at 95% CL for gluino one-step decay model grid.

Observed limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino one-step decay model grid.

Observed limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino one-step decay model grid.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR2jl.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR2jl.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR2jl.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR2jl.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR2jm.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR2jm.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR2jm.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR2jm.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR2jt.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR2jt.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR2jt.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR2jt.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR4jt.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR4jt.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR4jt.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR4jt.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR5j.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR5j.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR5j.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR5j.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR6jm.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR6jm.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR6jm.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR6jm.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR6jt.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR6jt.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR6jt.

Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR6jt.

Observed and expected event yields in VRZ as a function of signal region.

Observed and expected event yields in VRW as a function of signal region.

Observed and expected event yields in VRWv as a function of signal region.

Observed and expected event yields in VRT as a function of signal region.

Observed and expected event yields in VRTv as a function of signal region.

Observed and expected event yields in VRQa as a function of signal region.

Observed and expected event yields in VRQb as a function of signal region.

Signal acceptance for SR2jl in squark direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jl in squark direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR2jm in squark direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jm in squark direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR2jt in squark direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jt in squark direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR4jt in squark direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR4jt in squark direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR5j in squark direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR5j in squark direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR6jm in squark direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jm in squark direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR6jt in squark direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jt in squark direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR2jl in gluino direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jl in gluino direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR2jm in gluino direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jm in gluino direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR2jt in gluino direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jt in gluino direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR4jt in gluino direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR4jt in gluino direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR5j in gluino direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR5j in gluino direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR6jm in gluino direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jm in gluino direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR6jt in gluino direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jt in gluino direct decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR2jl in gluino one-step decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jl in gluino one-step decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR2jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR2j5 in gluino one-step decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR4jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR4jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR5j in gluino one-step decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR5j in gluino one-step decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR6jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.

Signal acceptance for SR6jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

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

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

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

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

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

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

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

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

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

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}/\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^{\pm }}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m\tilde{g}$, $m\widetilde{{\chi }_1^0}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Measured fiducial cross section times leptonic branching ratio for W+ production in the W+ -> mu+ nu final state.

Measured fiducial cross section times leptonic branching ratio for W- production in the W- -> mu- nubar final state.

Measured fiducial cross section times leptonic branching ratio for Z/gamma* production in the Z/gamma* -> mu+ mu- final state.

Measured fiducial cross-section ratios (lepton universality) R_{W} = sigma(W+/- -> e+/- nu/nubar)/sigma (W+/- -> mu+/- nu/nubar) and R_{Z} = sigma (Z/gamma^* -> e+ e-)/sigma (Z/gamma* -> mu+ mu-), and the correlation coefficient.

Measured fiducial cross section times leptonic branching ratio for W+ production in the combined W+ -> l+ nu (l = e, mu) final state.

Measured fiducial cross section times leptonic branching ratio for W- production in the combined W- -> l- nubar (l = e, mu) final state.

Measured fiducial cross section times leptonic branching ratio for W+/- production in the combined W+ -> l+ nu and W- -> l- nubar (l = e, mu) final state.

Measured fiducial cross section times leptonic branching ratio for Z/gamma* production in the combined Z/gamma* -> l+l- (l = e, mu) final state.

Measured total cross section times leptonic branching ratio for W+ production in the W+ -> e+ nu final state.

Measured total cross section times leptonic branching ratio for W- production in the W- -> e- nubar final state.

Measured total cross section times leptonic branching ratio for Z/gamma* production in the Z/gamma* -> e+ e- final state.

Measured total cross section times leptonic branching ratio for W+ production in the W+ -> mu+ nu final state.

Measured total cross section times leptonic branching ratio for W- production in the W- -> mu- nubar final state.

Measured total cross section times leptonic branching ratio for Z/gamma* production in the Z/gamma* -> mu+ mu- final state.

Measured total cross section times leptonic branching ratio for W+ production in the combined W+ -> l+ nu (l = e, mu) final state.

Measured total cross section times leptonic branching ratio for W- production in the combined W- -> l- nubar (l = e, mu) final state.

Measured total cross section times leptonic branching ratio for W+/- production in the combined W+ -> l+ nu and W- -> l- nubar (l = e, mu) final state.

Measured total cross section times leptonic branching ratio for Z/gamma* production in the combined Z/gamma* -> l+ l- (l = e, mu) final state.

Measured fiducial cross-section ratio R_{W+-/Z} = sigma (W+/- -> l+/- nu/nubar) / sigma (Z/gamma^* -> l+ l-) where (l = e, mu).

Measured fiducial cross-section ratio R_{W+/W-} = sigma (W+ -> l+ nu) / sigma (W- -> l- nubar) where (l = e, mu).

Correlation coefficients among (W- -> l- nubar), (W+ -> l+ nu), (Z/gamma^* -> l+ l-) where (l = e, mu) excluding the common normalisation uncertainty due to the luminosity calibration.

Data (bold boxes) and background estimates (colour fill) for m_beta vs. m_betagamma for the gluino R-hadron search (1000 GeV). The blue thin-line boxes illustrate the expected signal (on top of background) for the given R-hadron mass hypothesis. The black dashed vertical/horizontal lines at 500 GeV show the mass selection (signal region in the top-right). Two events pass this selection.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section as a function of mass for the production of long-lived gluino R-hadrons. The theory prediction along with its +-1sigma uncertainty is show as a black line and a blue band, respectively. The observed 8 TeV Run-1 limit and theory prediction [arXiv:1411.6795] are shown in dash-dotted and dotted lines, respectively.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section as a function of mass for the production of bottom-squark R-hadrons. The theory prediction along with its +-1sigma uncertainty is show as a black line and a blue band, respectively. The observed 8 TeV Run-1 limit and theory prediction [arXiv:1411.6795] are shown in dash-dotted and dotted lines, respectively.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section as a function of mass for the production of top-squark R-hadrons. The theory prediction along with its +-1sigma uncertainty is show as a black line and a blue band, respectively. The observed 8 TeV Run-1 limit and theory prediction [arXiv:1411.6795] are shown in dash-dotted and dotted lines, respectively.

Final selection requirements as a function of the simulated R-hadron mass.

Summary of all studied systematic uncertainties. Ranges indicate a dependency on the R-hadron mass hypothesis (from low to high masses).

Expected signal yield (Nsig) and efficiency (eff.), estimated background (Nbkg) and observed number of events in data (Nobs) for the full mass range after the final selection using 3.2/fb of data. The stated uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic contribution.

Distribution of the truth-level beta for gluino R-hadrons in exemplary signal MC samples and muons in a Zmumu MC sample. All distributions have been normalised to one. The last bin contains the overflow of the histograms. The distributions illustrate the good discriminating power of the variables.

Distribution of the truth-level betagamma for gluino R-hadrons in exemplary signal MC samples and muons in a Zmumu MC sample. All distributions have been normalised to one. The last bin contains the overflow of the histograms. The distributions illustrate the good discriminating power of the variables.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% confidence level upper limits on the cross section as a function of mass for the production of long-lived gluino R-hadrons. The theory prediction along with its +-1sigma uncertainty is show as a black line and a blue band, respectively. For meta-stable gluinos with a lifetime of 50 ns. (mass exclusion: about 1660 GeV expected, 1520 GeV observed).

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% confidence level upper limits on the cross section as a function of mass for the production of long-lived gluino R-hadrons. The theory prediction along with its +-1sigma uncertainty is show as a black line and a blue band, respectively. For meta-stable gluinos with a lifetime of 30 ns. (mass exclusion: about 1660 GeV expected, 1520 GeV observed).

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% confidence level upper limits on the cross section as a function of mass for the production of long-lived gluino R-hadrons. The theory prediction along with its +-1sigma uncertainty is show as a black line and a blue band, respectively. For meta-stable gluinos with a lifetime of 10 ns. (mass exclusion: about 1660 GeV expected, 1520 GeV observed).

Object-quality selection cut-flow with observed data and exemplary expected events (scaled to 3.2/fb for MC) in the gluino R-hadron search.

Object-quality selection cut-flow with observed data and exemplary expected events (scaled to 3.2/fb for MC) in the squark R-hadron search.

Expected signal yield (Nsig) and efficiency (eff.), estimated background (Nbkg) and observed number of events in data (Nobs) for the full mass range in the meta-stable gluino R-hadron search using 3.2/fb of data. The stated uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic contribution.

NLO cross sections and selection efficiencies (assuming $\beta$ = 1) for different signal points.

Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the ${\tilde{E}}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution with the TZCR1 event selection except for the requirement on ${\tilde{E}}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$. The variables ${\tilde{E}}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ and ${\tilde{m}}_{\text{T}}$ are constructed in the same way as $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ and $m_{\text{T}}$ but treating the leading photon transverse momentum as invisible. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.

Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the ${\tilde{m}}_{\text{T}}$ distribution with the TZCR1 event selection except for the requirement on ${\tilde{m}}_{\text{T}}$. The variables ${\tilde{E}}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ and ${\tilde{m}}_{\text{T}}$ are constructed in the same way as $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ and $m_{\text{T}}$ but treating the leading photon transverse momentum as invisible. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.

Comparison of the observed data ($n_{\text{obs}}$) with the predicted background ($n_{\text{exp}}$) in the validation and signal regions. The background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between data and predicted background, where the significance is based on the total uncertainty (${\sigma }_{\text{tot}}$).

Jet multiplicity distributions for events where exactly two signal leptons are selected. No correction factors are included in the background normalizations. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.

Jet multiplicity distributions for events where exactly one lepton plus one $\tau$ candidate are selected. No correction factors are included in the background normalizations. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.

The $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution in SR1. In the plot, the full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement on $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow. Benchmark signal models are overlaid for comparison. The benchmark models are specified by the gluino and stop masses, given in TeV in the table.

The $m_{\text{T}}$ distribution in SR1. In the plot, the full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement on $m_{\text{T}}$. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow. Benchmark signal models are overlaid for comparison. The benchmark models are specified by the gluino and stop masses, given in TeV in the table.

Expected (black dashed) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ versus $m_{{\tilde{t}}_1}$ for gluino-mediated stop production.

Observed (red solid) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ versus $m_{{\tilde{t}}_1}$ for gluino-mediated stop production.

Expected (black dashed) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{{\tilde{t}}_1}$ versus $m_{{\tilde{\chi }}_1^0}$ for direct stop production.

Observed (red solid) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{{\tilde{t}}_1}$ versus $m_{{\tilde{\chi }}_1^0}$ for direct stop production.

The expected upper limits on $T$ quark pair production times the squared branching ratio for $T\to tZ$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass.

The observed upper limits on $T$ quark pair production times the squared branching ratio for $T\to tZ$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass.

The expected limits on $T$ quarks as a function of the branching ratios $B(T\to bW)$ and $B(T\to tH)$ for a $T$ quark with a mass of 800 GeV. The $T$ is assumed to decay in three possible ways: $T\to tZ$, $T\to tH$, and $T\to bW$.

The observed limits on $T$ quarks as a function of the branching ratios $B(T\to bW)$ and $B(T\to tH)$ for a $T$ quark with a mass of 800 GeV. The $T$ is assumed to decay in three possible ways: $T\to tZ$, $T\to tH$, and $T\to bW$.

The $m_{\text{T}}$ distribution in the WVR2-tail validation region which has the same preselection and jet $p_{\text{T}}$ requirements as SR2.

The $a{m}_{\text{T2}}$ distribution in the WVR2-tail validation region which has the same preselection and jet $p_{\text{T}}$ requirements as SR2.

Large-radius jet mass ($R=1.2$), decomposed into the number of small-radius jet constituents. The lower panel shows the ratio of the total data to the total prediction (summed over all jet multiplicities). Events are required to have one lepton, four jets with $p_{\text{T}}>80,50,40,40$ GeV, at least one $b$-tagged jet, $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}>200$ GeV, and $m_{\text{T}}>30$ GeV.

Distribution of $m_{\text{T2}}^{\tau }$ in data for a selection enriched in $t\overline{t}$ events with one hadronically decaying $\tau$. Events that have no hadronic $\tau$ candidate (that passes the Loose identification criteria, as well as other requirements) are not shown in the plot.

Upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for the gluino-mediated stop models.

Upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for the models with direct stop pair production.

Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for the gluino-mediated stop models. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for models with direct stop pair production. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Expected $C{L}_s$ values for the gluino-mediated stop models.

Observed $C{L}_s$ values for the gluino-mediated stop models.

Expected $C{L}_s$ values for the direct stop pair production models.

Observed $C{L}_s$ values for the direct stop pair production models.

Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with ${\tilde{t}}_1={\tilde{t}}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with ${\tilde{t}}_1\sim {\tilde{t}}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with ${\tilde{t}}_1={\tilde{t}}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with ${\tilde{t}}_1\sim {\tilde{t}}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with ${\tilde{t}}_1={\tilde{t}}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with ${\tilde{t}}_1\sim {\tilde{t}}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with ${\tilde{t}}_1={\tilde{t}}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with ${\tilde{t}}_1\sim {\tilde{t}}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with ${\tilde{t}}_1={\tilde{t}}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with ${\tilde{t}}_1\sim {\tilde{t}}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with ${\tilde{t}}_1={\tilde{t}}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with ${\tilde{t}}_1\sim {\tilde{t}}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Acceptance for SR1 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR1 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR2 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR2 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR3 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR3 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Efficiency for SR1 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR1 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR2 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR2 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR3 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR3 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missing transverse momentum distribution after SR3b selection, beside the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ requirement. The results in the signal region correspond to the last inclusive bin. The systematic uncertainties include theory uncertainties for the backgrounds with prompt SS/3L and the full systematic uncertainties for data-driven backgrounds. For illustration the distribution for a benchmark SUSY scenario ($pp\to \tilde{g}\tilde{g}$, $\tilde{g}\to t\overline{t}{\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$, $m_{\tilde{g}}=1.2$ TeV, $m_{{\tilde{\chi }}_1^0}=0.7$ TeV) is also shown.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde{g}$ and ${\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde{g}\to qq(\tilde{\ell }\ell /\tilde{\nu }\nu )$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde{g}$ and ${\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde{g}\to qq(\tilde{\ell }\ell /\tilde{\nu }\nu )$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde{g}$ and ${\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde{g}\to qq(\tilde{\ell }\ell /\tilde{\nu }\nu )$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde{g}$ and ${\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde{g}\to qqWZ{\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde{g}$ and ${\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde{g}\to qqWZ{\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde{g}$ and ${\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde{g}\to qqWZ{\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on the ${\tilde{b}}_1$ and ${\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring ${\tilde{b}}_1{\tilde{b}}_1^{\ast }$ pair production with exclusive ${\tilde{b}}_1\to t{\tilde{\chi }}_1^{-}$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the ${\tilde{b}}_1$ and ${\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring ${\tilde{b}}_1{\tilde{b}}_1^{\ast }$ pair production with exclusive ${\tilde{b}}_1\to t{\tilde{\chi }}_1^{-}$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the ${\tilde{b}}_1$ and ${\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring ${\tilde{b}}_1{\tilde{b}}_1^{\ast }$ pair production with exclusive ${\tilde{b}}_1\to t{\tilde{\chi }}_1^{-}$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde{g}$ and ${\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde{g}\to t\overline{t}{\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde{g}$ and ${\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde{g}\to t\overline{t}{\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde{g}$ and ${\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde{g}\to t\overline{t}{\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

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

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

SUSY scenario with $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ production and $\tilde{g}\to q\overline{q}WZ{\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR0b5j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ production and $\tilde{g}\to q\overline{q}WZ{\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR0b5j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with ${\tilde{b}}_1{\tilde{b}}_1^{\ast }$ production and ${\tilde{b}}_1\to tW{\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR1b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with ${\tilde{b}}_1{\tilde{b}}_1^{\ast }$ production and ${\tilde{b}}_1\to tW{\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR1b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ production and $\tilde{g}\to t\overline{t}{\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR3b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ production and $\tilde{g}\to t\overline{t}{\tilde{\chi }}_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR3b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

Cross-section upper limit in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the best expected signal region.

Cross-section upper limit in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.

Cross-section upper limit in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.

Cross-section upper limit in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the SRA450 signal region.

Cross-section upper limit in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the SRB signal region.

Expected CLs values in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the best expected signal region.

Expected CLs values in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA250.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA250.

Expected CLs values in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA350.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA350.

Expected CLs values in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the SRA450 signal region.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA450.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA450.

Expected CLs values in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the SRB signal region.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRB.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRB.

Observed CLs values in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the best expected signal region.

Observed CLs values in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.

Observed CLs values in the $m({\tilde{b}}_1)$-$m({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.