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.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gbb signal.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gbb signal.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gtt combination.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gtt combination.

Acceptances for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-A. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.

Acceptances for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.

Acceptances for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.

Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-A. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.

Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-B. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.

Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-C. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.

Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-A. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.

Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-B. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.

Acceptance times efficiency for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-A.

Acceptance times efficiency for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.

Acceptance times efficiency for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.

Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-A.

Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-B.

Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-C.

Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-A.

Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-B.

95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-A.

95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.

95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.

95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-A.

95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-B.

95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-C.

95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-A.

95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-B.

Signal region yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gbb model.

Signal region yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gtt model for the 0-lepton channel.

Signal region yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gtt model for the 1-lepton channel.

Combination of two 0-lepton and 1-lepton signal regions yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gtt model.

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

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

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

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

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

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

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

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

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

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

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 $T \rightarrow tZ$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass.

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

The expected limits on $T$ quarks as a function of the branching ratios $B\left(T \rightarrow bW\right)$ and $B\left(T \rightarrow tH\right)$ 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 $B\left(T \rightarrow bW\right)$ and $B\left(T \rightarrow tH\right)$ 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 $am_\text{T2}$ 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 $t\bar{t}$ 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 $CL_s$ values for the gluino-mediated stop models.

Observed $CL_s$ values for the gluino-mediated stop models.

Expected $CL_s$ values for the direct stop pair production models.

Observed $CL_s$ 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).

Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the best expected signal region.

Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.

Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.

Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA450 signal region.

Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRB signal region.

Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the best expected signal region.

Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA250.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA250.

Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA350.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA350.

Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA450 signal region.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA450.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA450.

Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRB signal region.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRB.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRB.

Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the best expected signal region.

Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.

Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.

Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA450 signal region.

Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRB signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the best expected signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA250 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA350 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA450 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRB signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the best expected signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA250 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA350 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA450 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRB signal region.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

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 $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=400$ 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 $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=660$ 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 $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=0$ 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 $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=0$ 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, $m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)=945$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=625$ 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, $m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)=945$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=625$ 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, $m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)=705$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=25$ 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.

Efficiency for the calorimetric MET>80 GeV trigger as a function of the metastable R-hadron mass. The R-hadron decays to g/qq plus neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV with a lifetime of 1 ns.

Efficiency for the calorimetric MET>80 GeV trigger as a function of the metastable R-hadron mass. The R-hadron decays to g/qq plus neutralino of mass 100 GeV with a lifetime of 1 ns.

Efficiency for the calorimetric MET>80 GeV trigger as a function of the stable chargino mass.

Total selection efficiency as a function of the stable R-hadron mass.

Total selection efficiency as a function of the metastable R-hadron mass. The R-hadron decays to g/qq plus neutralino of mass 100 GeV with a lifetime of 10 ns.

Total selection efficiency as a function of the metastable R-hadron mass. The R-hadron decays to g/qq plus neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV with a lifetime of 10 ns.

Total selection efficiency as a function of the metastable R-hadron mass. The R-hadron decays to g/qq plus neutralino of mass 100 GeV with a lifetime of 1 ns.

Total selection efficiency as a function of the stable chargino mass.

Ionisation distribution of all the CR2 tracks, and those not matched to a reconstructed muon. The two distributions are normalised to their total number of entries.

Distribution of the mass of selected candidates, derived from the specific ionisation loss, for an example of gluino R-hadron signal, for searches for stable particles. The signal distributions are stacked on the expected background, and a narrower binning is used for them to allow the signal shape to be seen more clearly. The number of signal events is that expected according to the theoretical cross sections.

Distribution of the mass of selected candidates, derived from the specific ionisation loss, for one example of chargino signal, for searches for stable particles. The signal distributions are stacked on the expected background, and a narrower binning is used for them to allow the signal shape to be seen more clearly. The number of signal events is that expected according to the theoretical cross sections.

Distribution of the mass of selected candidates, derived from the specific ionisation loss, for background and data, for searches for stable particles. The expected background is shown with its total uncertainty (sum in quadrature of statistical, normalisation and systematic errors).

Distribution of the mass of selected candidates, derived from the specific ionisation loss, for an example of gluino R-hadron signal, for searches for metastable particles. The signal distributions are stacked on the expected background, and a narrower binning is used for them to allow the signal shape to be seen more clearly. The number of signal events is that expected according to the theoretical cross sections.

Distribution of the mass of selected candidates, derived from the specific ionisation loss, for an example of chargino signal, for searches for metastable particles. The signal distributions are stacked on the expected background, and a narrower binning is used for them to allow the signal shape to be seen more clearly. The number of signal events is that expected according to the theoretical cross sections.

Distribution of the mass of selected candidates, derived from the specific ionisation loss, for background and data. The expected background is shown with its total uncertainty (sum in quadrature of statistical, normalisation and systematic errors).

Theoretical values for the cross section of gluino pairs production with their uncertainty.

Expected upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable gluino R-hadrons, with lifetime tau =10 ns, decaying into g/qq plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV, in the background-only case, with its 1 sigma band.

Observed 95 PCT upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable gluino R-hadrons, with lifetime tau =10 ns, decaying into g/qq plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV.

Expected upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable gluino R-hadrons, with lifetime tau =10 ns, decaying into g/qq plus a heavy neutralino of mass(gluino) - 100 GeV, in the background-only case, with its 1 sigma band.

Observed 95 PCT upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable gluino R-hadrons, with lifetime tau =10 ns, decaying into g/qq plus a heavy neutralino of mass(gluino) - 100 GeV.

The expected excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into g/qq plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section.

The expected excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into g/qq plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section, plus 1 experimental sigma.

The expected excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into g/qq plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section, minus 1 experimental sigma.

The observed excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into g/qq plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section.

The observed excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into g/qq plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section minus its uncertainty.

The observed excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into g/qq plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section plus its uncertainty.

The expected excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into g/qq plus a heavy neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section.

The expected excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into g/qq plus a heavy neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section, plus 1 experimental sigma.

The expected excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into g/qq plus a heavy neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section, minus 1 experimental sigma.

The observed excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into g/qq plus a heavy neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section.

The observed excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into g/qq plus a heavy neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section minus its uncertainty.

The observed excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into g/qq plus a heavy neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section plus its uncertainty.

Expected upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable gluino R-hadrons, with lifetime tau =10 ns, decaying into tt plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV, in the background-only case, with its 1 sigma band.

Observed 95 PCT upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable gluino R-hadrons, with lifetime tau =10 ns, decaying into tt plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV.

Expected upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable gluino R-hadrons, with lifetime tau =10 ns, decaying into tt plus a heavy neutralino of mass(gluino) - 100 GeV, in the background-only case, with its 1 sigma band.

Observed 95 PCT upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable gluino R-hadrons, with lifetime tau =10 ns, decaying into tt plus a heavy neutralino of mass(gluino) - 100 GeV.

The expected excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into tt plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section.

The expected excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into tt plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section, plus 1 experimental sigma.

The expected excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into tt plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section, minus 1 experimental sigma.

The observed excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into tt plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section.

The observed excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into tt plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section minus its uncertainty.

The observed excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into tt plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section plus its uncertainty.

The expected excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into tt plus a heavy neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section.

The expected excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into tt plus a heavy neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section, plus 1 experimental sigma.

The expected excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into tt plus a heavy neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section, minus 1 experimental sigma.

The observed excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into tt plus a heavy neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section.

The observed excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into tt plus a heavy neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section minus its uncertainty.

The observed excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for gluino R-hadrons decaying into tt plus a heavy neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section plus its uncertainty.

Theoretical values for the production cross section of charginos or chargino/neutralino pairs, with their uncertainty.

Expected upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable charginos, with lifetime tau =1.0 ns, decaying into neutralino + pion, in the background-only case, with its 1 sigma band.

Observed 95 PCT upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable charginos, with lifetime tau =1.0 ns, decaying into neutralino + pion.

The expected excluded range of lifetimes as a function of chargino mass for charginos decaying into neutralino plus pion, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section.

The expected excluded range of lifetimes as a function of chargino mass for charginos decaying into neutralino plus pion, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section, plus 1 experimental sigma.

The expected excluded range of lifetimes as a function of chargino mass for charginos decaying into neutralino plus pion, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section, minus 1 experimental sigma.

The observed excluded range of lifetimes as a function of chargino mass for charginos decaying into neutralino plus pion, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section.

The observed excluded range of lifetimes as a function of chargino mass for charginos decaying into neutralino plus pion, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section minus its uncertainty.

The observed excluded range of lifetimes as a function of gluino mass for chargino mass for charginos decaying into neutralino plus pion, with respect to the nominal theoretical cross section plus its uncertainty.

dEdx ionization for data, 1 TeV gluino R-hadrons stable and decaying in 100 GeV neutralinos with a 10 ns lifetime and for charginos of 350 GeV. Tracks that fulfil all the requirements up to including the High-m_T (see Tab.1 in the paper) are considered at this stage and normalised to an integrated luminosity of 18.4 fb^-1.

Expected upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for stable gluino R-hadrons, in case of background only, with its 1 sigma band.

Observed 95 PCT upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for stable gluino R-hadrons.

Theoretical values for the cross section of squark pairs production with their uncertainty.

Expected upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for stable sbottom R-hadrons, in case of background only, with its 1 sigma band.

Observed 95 PCT upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for stable sbottom $R$-hadrons. Cross section IN PB.

Expected upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for stop R-hadrons, in case of background only, with its 1 sigma band.

Observed 95 PCT upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for stop R-hadrons.

Expected upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for stable charginos, in case of background only, with its 1 sigma band.

Observed 95 PCT upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for stable charginos.

Expected upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable gluino R-hadrons, with lifetime tau=1.0 ns, decaying to g/qq plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV.

Observed 95 PCT upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable gluino R-hadrons, with lifetime tau=1.0 ns, decaying to g/qq plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV.

Expected upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable gluino R-hadrons, with lifetime tau=1.0 ns, decaying to g/qq plus a heavy neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV.

Observed 95 PCT upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable gluino R-hadrons, with lifetime tau=1.0 ns, decaying to g/qq plus a heavy neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV.

Expected upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable gluino R-hadrons, with lifetime tau=1.0 ns, decaying to tt plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV.

Observed 95 PCT upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable gluino R-hadrons, with lifetime tau=1.0 ns, decaying to tt plus a light neutralino of mass 100 GeV.

Expected upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable gluino R-hadrons, with lifetime tau=1.0 ns, decaying to tt plus a heavy neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV.

Observed 95 PCT upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable gluino R-hadrons, with lifetime tau=1.0 ns, decaying to tt plus a heavy neutralino of mass = m(gluino) - 100 GeV.

Expected upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable charginos, with lifetime tau =15 ns, decaying to neutralino and pion, in case of background only, with its 1 sigma band.

Observed 95 PCT upper limits on the production cross section as a function of mass for metastable charginos, with lifetime tau =15 ns, decaying to neutralino and pion, in case of background only, with its 1 sigma band.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kinematic distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 2-tau channel, for mTsum in the Compressed SR selection without the mTsum>1400 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Cited uncertainties are statistical uncertainties only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "MM" refers to a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV. The GMSB benchmark model corresponds to Lambda = 90 TeV and tanbeta = 40.

Kinematic distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 2-tau channel, for mTtau1+mTtau2 in the High-Mass SR selection without the mTtau1+mTtau2>350GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Cited uncertainties are statistical uncertainties only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "MM" refers to a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV. The GMSB benchmark model corresponds to Lambda = 90 TeV and tanbeta = 40.

Kinematic distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 2-tau channel, for HT in the GMSB SR selection without the HT > 1700 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Cited uncertainties are statistical uncertainties only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "MM" refers to a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV. The GMSB benchmark model corresponds to Lambda = 90 TeV and tanbeta = 40.

Expected exclusion contour at the 95% confidence level for the simplified model of gluino pair production, based on the combined results from the 1tau and 2tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data.

Observed exclusion contour at the 95% confidence level for the simplified model of gluino pair production, based on the combined results from the 1tau and 2tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data.

Expected exclusion contour at the 95% confidence level for the simplified model of gluino pair production, based on results from the 2tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data.

Expected exclusion contour at the 95% confidence level for the simplified model of gluino pair production, based on results from the 1tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data.

Observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the gauge-mediated supersymmetry-breaking model, based on results from the 2 tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data. Additional model parameters are M(mess) = 250 TeV, N5 = 3, mu>0 and Cgrav =1.

Expected exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the gauge-mediated supersymmetry-breaking model, based on results from the 2 tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data. Additional model parameters are M(mess) = 250 TeV, N5 = 3, mu>0 and Cgrav =1.

Observed upper cross section limits in pb for the simplified model of gluino pair production for the combination of all SRs.

Best expected signal region for the simplified model of gluino pair production. The respective SR has been used in the combination of the results.

Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the Compressed 1tau signal region.

Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the Compressed 1tau signal region.

Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the Compressed 1tau signal region.

Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the medium mass 1tau signal region.

Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the medium mass 1tau signal region.

Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the medium mass 1tau signal region.

Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 1tau signal region.

Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 1tau signal region.

Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 1tau signal region.

Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the compressed 2tau signal region.

Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the compressed 2tau signal region.

Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the compressed 2tau signal region.

Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 2tau signal region.

Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 2tau signal region.

Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 2tau signal region.

Acceptance for the GMSB model grid in the 2tau signal region.

Efficiency for the GMSB model grid in the 2tau signal region.

Acceptance times Efficiency for the GMSB model grid in the 2tau signal region.

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

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

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-I, tanbeta 1, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-I only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-I, tanbeta 5, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-I only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-I, tanbeta 10, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-I only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-I, tanbeta 20, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-I only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-II, tanbeta 1, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-II both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-II, tanbeta 5, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-II both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-II, tanbeta 10, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-II both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-II, tanbeta 20, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-II both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the lepton specific, tanbeta 1, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For lepton specific only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the lepton specific, tanbeta 2, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For lepton specific only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the lepton specific, tanbeta 3, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For lepton specific only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the flipped, tanbeta 1, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For flipped both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the flipped, tanbeta 5, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For flipped both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the flipped, tanbeta 10, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For flipped both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the flipped, tanbeta 20, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For flipped both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 130 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 130 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 140 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 140 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 150 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 150 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 160 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 160 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 170 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 170 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 180 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 180 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 190 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 190 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 210 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 210 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 220 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 220 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 230 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 230 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 240 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 240 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 250 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 250 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 260 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 260 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 270 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 270 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 280 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 280 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 290 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 290 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 310 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 310 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 320 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 320 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 330 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 330 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 340 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 340 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 350 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 350 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 360 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 360 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 370 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 370 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 380 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 380 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 390 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 390 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 400 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 400 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 410 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 410 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 420 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 420 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 430 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 430 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 440 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 440 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 450 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 450 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 460 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 460 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 470 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 470 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 480 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 480 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 490 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 490 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 510 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 510 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 520 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 520 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 530 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 530 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 540 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 540 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 550 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 550 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 560 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 560 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 570 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 570 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 580 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 580 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 590 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 590 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 600 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 600 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 610 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 610 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 620 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 620 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 630 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 630 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 640 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 640 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 650 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 650 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 660 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 660 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 670 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 670 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 680 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 680 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 690 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 690 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 700 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 700 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 200 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 200 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 300 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 300 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 500 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 500 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the tan$\beta$ - $m_H$ plane shown in the context of the hMSSM, for the regions in which theoretical predictions are available (0.5$\leq\text{tan}\beta\leq60$).

Observed a95% CL exclusion contour in the tan$\beta$ - $m_H$ plane shown in the context of the $m_{H}^{mod-}$ scenario, for the regions in which theoretical predictions are available (0.5$\leq\text{tan}\beta\leq60$).

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the tan$\beta$ - $m_H$ plane shown in the context of the $m_{H}^{mod-}$ scenario, for the regions in which theoretical predictions are available (0.5$\leq\text{tan}\beta\leq60$).

Acceptance x efficiency versus resonance mass for both lephad and hadhad channels in the RS bulk model with k/MPl = 1

Acceptance x efficiency versus resonance mass for both lephad and hadhad channels in the RS bulk model with k/MPl = 2

Acceptance x efficiency versus resonance mass for both lephad and hadhad channels in the scalar model

Upper limits on the production cross-section times the HH to bbtautau branching ratio for non-resonant HH at 95% CLS and their interpretation as multiples of the SM prediction

Upper limits on the production cross-section times the HH to bbtautau branching ratio divided by the SM prediction for non-resonant HH at 95% CL

Post-fit expected number of signal and background events and observed number of data events after applying the selection criteria and requiring exactly 2 b-tagged jets and assuming a background-only hypothesis

Post-fit expected number of signal and background events and observed number of data events in the last two bins of the non-resonant BDT score distribution of the SM signal after applying the selection criteria and requiring exactly 2 b-tagged jets and assuming a background-only hypothesis

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ medium-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ medium-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ high-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ high-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ multibin SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ multibin SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ GMSB SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ GMSB SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Best performing fit setups entering the final combination as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass. 'S' marks the simultaneous fit of the four simplified model single-bin SRs, 'M' denotes the simultaneous fit of the two $1\tau$ SRs and the $2\tau$ multibin SR.

Best performing fit setups entering the final combination as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass. 'S' marks the simultaneous fit of the four simplified model single-bin SRs, 'M' denotes the simultaneous fit of the two $1\tau$ SRs and the $2\tau$ multibin SR.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of tanBeta and SUSY breaking mass scale Lambda.

Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of tanBeta and SUSY breaking mass scale Lambda.

Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Yields of the expected background from the SM in the bins of the multibin SR of the $2\tau$ channel with all bins being simultaneously used to constrain the background prediction. Expectation is given with the scalings computed in the combined fit applied. Uncertainties are statistial plus systematrics. Only the subsamples contributing the respective region are considered.

Yields of the expected background from the SM in the bins of the multibin SR of the $2\tau$ channel with all bins being simultaneously used to constrain the background prediction. Expectation is given with the scalings computed in the combined fit applied. Uncertainties are statistial plus systematrics. Only the subsamples contributing the respective region are considered.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the compressed $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the compressed $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the medium-mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the medium-mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the medium-mass $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the medium-mass $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the top VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the top VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the $W$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the $W$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the $Z$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the $Z$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ > 80 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ > 80 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ in the compressed SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ > 1600 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ in the compressed SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ > 1600 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the high-mass SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1100 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the high-mass SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1100 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

mT(tau_1) + mT(tau_2) in the multibin SR of the 2T channel. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

mT(tau_1) + mT(tau_2) in the multibin SR of the 2T channel. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the GMSB SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1900 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the GMSB SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1900 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

Lower mass requirement for signal regions.

Lower mass requirement for signal regions.

Lower mass requirement for signal regions.

Expected and observed events in the 16 discovery regions along with the according control regions.

Expected and observed events in the 16 discovery regions along with the according control regions.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic R-hadron search.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic R-hadron search.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector R-hadron search.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector R-hadron search.

p0-values and model-independent upper limits on cross-section x acceptance x efficiency for the 16 discovery regions.

p0-values and model-independent upper limits on cross-section x acceptance x efficiency for the 16 discovery regions.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic search for metastable gluino R-hadrons.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic search for metastable gluino R-hadrons.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector direct-stau search.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector direct-stau search.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector chargino search.

Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector chargino search.

Upper cross-section limit in gluino R-hadron search.

Upper cross-section limit in gluino R-hadron search.

Upper cross-section limit in sbottom R-hadron search.

Upper cross-section limit in sbottom R-hadron search.

Upper cross-section limit in stop R-hadron search.

Upper cross-section limit in stop R-hadron search.

Upper cross-section limit in stau search.

Upper cross-section limit in stau search.

Upper cross-section limit in chargino search.

Upper cross-section limit in chargino search.

Lower mass limit as function of gluino lifetime.

Lower mass limit as function of gluino lifetime.

Acceptance x efficiency, acceptance and efficiency for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic R-hadron search.

Acceptance x efficiency, acceptance and efficiency for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic R-hadron search.

Upper cross-section limit in meta-stable gluino R-hadron search.

Upper cross-section limit in meta-stable gluino R-hadron search.

Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.

Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.

Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.

Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.

Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.

Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.

Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.

Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.

ETmiss trigger efficiency as function of true ETmiss (EtmissTurnOn).

ETmiss trigger efficiency as function of true ETmiss (EtmissTurnOn).

Single-muon trigger efficiency as function of $|\eta|$ and $\beta$ (SingleMuTurnOn).

Single-muon trigger efficiency as function of $|\eta|$ and $\beta$ (SingleMuTurnOn).

Candidate reconstruction efficiency for ID+Calo selection (IDCaloEff).

Candidate reconstruction efficiency for ID+Calo selection (IDCaloEff).

Candidate reconstruction efficiency for loose selection (LooseEff).

Candidate reconstruction efficiency for loose selection (LooseEff).

Efficiency for a loose candidate to be promoted to a tight candidate (TightPromotionEff).

Efficiency for a loose candidate to be promoted to a tight candidate (TightPromotionEff).

Resolution and average of reconstructed dE/dx mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates.

Resolution and average of reconstructed dE/dx mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates.

Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates.

Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates.

Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for FullDet candidates.

Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for FullDet candidates.

List of relative uncertainties in the measured cross sections of the $t\bar{t}Z$ and $t\bar{t}W$ processes from the fit, grouped in categories. All uncertainties are symmetrized. The sum in quadrature may not be equal to the total due to correlations between uncertainties introduced by the fit.

The expected and observed 68% and 95% confidence intervals, which include the value 0, for $\mathcal{C}_{i}/\Lambda^{2}$ for the EFT coefficients $\mathcal{C}_{\phi Q}^{(3)}$, $\mathcal{C}_{\phi t}$, $\mathcal{C}_{tB}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{tW}$. The intervals for $\mathcal{C}_{\phi Q}^{(3)}$ are derived setting $\mathcal{C}_{\phi Q}^{(1)}$ to zero; the measurement is sensitive to the difference $\mathcal{C}_{\phi Q}^{(3)}-\mathcal{C}_{\phi Q}^{(1)}$. All results are given in units of 1/TeV$^{2}$. Limits from fits for the EFT coefficients with only the linear term are also shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4j-2200. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 800 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6j-2600. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jB-2400. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1600 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 1590 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 60 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2j-1200. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 900 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 500 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2j-1600. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 500 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2j-2000. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2j-2400. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1500 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2j-3600. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jB-1600. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1600 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 1590 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 60 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR3j-1300. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 600 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 595 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4j-1400. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4j-1800. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4j-2600. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4j-3000. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR5j-1600. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR5j-1700. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR5j-2000. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR5j-2600. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6j-1200. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6j-1800. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6j-2200. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from searches in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from searches in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from searches in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from searches in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate the second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and second lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate the second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and second lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate the second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=0$ GeV.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=0$ GeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=0$ GeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=695$ GeV.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=695$ GeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=695$ GeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=995$ GeV.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=995$ GeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=995$ GeV.

Cut-flow of Meff-2j for three supersymmetric models: a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 2000 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 600 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (20000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1500 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cut-flow of Meff-3j,4j for three supersymmetric models: a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 2000 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 600 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (20000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1500 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cut-flow of Meff-5j,6j for three supersymmetric models: a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 2000 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 600 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (20000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1500 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cut-flow for RJR-based SR's targeting squarks for SS direct model points. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cut-flow for RJR-based SR's targeting gluinos for GG direct model points. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cut-flow for RJR-based SR's targeting compressed mass-spectra signals for SS direct and GG direct model points. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-2j-1200.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-2j-1600.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-2j-2000.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-2j-2400.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-2j-2800.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-2j-3600.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-2j-2100.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-3j-1300.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-4j-1000.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-4j-1400.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-4j-1800.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-4j-2200.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-4j-2600.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-4j-3000.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-5j-1700.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-5j-1600.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-5j-2000.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-5j-2600.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-6j-1200.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-6j-1800.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-6j-2200.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-6j-2600.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-2jB-1600.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR Meff-2jB-2400.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-S1a.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-S1b.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-S2a.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-S2b.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-S3a.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-S3b.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-S4.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-C1.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-C2.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-C3.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-C4.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-C5.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-G1a.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-G1b.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-G2a.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-G2b.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-G3a.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-G3b.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and direct decays to a quark and neutralino in SR RJR-G4.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-2j-1200.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-2j-1600.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-2j-2000.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-2j-2400.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-2j-2800.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-2j-3600.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-2j-2100.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-3j-1300.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-4j-1000.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-4j-1400.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-4j-1800.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-4j-2200.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-4j-2600.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-4j-3000.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-5j-1700.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-5j-1600.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-5j-2000.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-5j-2600.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-6j-1200.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-6j-1800.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-6j-2200.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-6j-2600.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-2jB-1600.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR Meff-2jB-2400.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR RJR-S1a.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR RJR-S1b.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR RJR-S2a.

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and direct decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR RJR-S2b.