Summary of observed and expected background yields in the SR after the likelihood fit under the background-only hypothesis.

The efficiency for simulated VBF events to pass each analysis cut.

The efficiency for simulated VH events to pass each analysis cut.

The efficiency for simulated ttH events to pass each analysis cut.

The fractional contribution of each production mode to a given analysis region around the Higgs boson peak, defined as 105 < mJ < 140 GeV. The fraction is given with respect to the total signal yield in the analysis region in question.

Signal acceptance times efficiency within the fiducial volume used in the fiducial region.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for the STXS volumes in the differential measurement. Along with the pTH requirements shown, |yH | < 2 is required. For events with pTH < 300 GeV, the acceptance times efficiency is less than 0.1 × 10−2.

Event yields and associated uncertainties after the global likelihood fit in the pT(H) > 450 GeV fiducial region. The total background yield can differ from the sum of the individual components due to rounding.

Event yields and associated uncertainties after the global likelihood fit of the differential regions. The total background yield can differ from the sum of the individual components due to rounding. The five STXS volumes are labeled pT0–pT4 corresponding to pTH < 300 GeV, 300 – 450 GeV, 450 – 650 GeV, 650 – 1000 GeV, and > 1000 GeV, respectively. The pT0 event yield is constrained to its SM value within the theoretical and experimental uncertainties and free parameters act independently on the remaining four volumes.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|y_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $10 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 20$ GeV.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|y_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $20 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 40$ GeV.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight 2.0 shown as a function of $|y_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $40 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 80$ GeV.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $0 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 0.8$.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $0.8 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 1.6$.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $1.6 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 2.4$.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $0 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 0.8$.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $0.8 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 1.6$.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight 2.0 shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $1.6 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 2.4$.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $10 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 20$ GeV.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $20 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 40$ GeV.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $40 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 80$ GeV.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $10 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 20$ GeV.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $20 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 40$ GeV.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight 2.0 shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $40 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 80$ GeV.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $10 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 20$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $20 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 40$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $40 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 80$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $10 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 20$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon xsects from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $20 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 40$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight 2.0 shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $40 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 80$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.

Differential cross section as a function of k_max

Ratio of data/STARlight for differential cross sections as a function of k_max

Differential cross section as a function of k_min

Ratio of data/STARlight for differential cross sections as a function of k_min

Differential cross sections in $\alpha$ (acoplanarity) integrated over the full fiducial volume

Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $0<|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$

Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $10<|m_{\mu\mu}|<20$ GeV

Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $0.8<|y_{\mu\mu}|<1.6$

Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $20<|m_{\mu\mu}|<40$ GeV

Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $1.6<|y_{\mu\mu}|<2.4$

Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $40<|m_{\mu\mu}|<80$ GeV

Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $0<|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$

Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $10<|m_{\mu\mu}|<20$ GeV

Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $0.8<|y_{\mu\mu}|<1.6$

Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $20<|m_{\mu\mu}|<40$ GeV

Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $1.6<|y_{\mu\mu}|<2.4$

Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $40<|m_{\mu\mu}|<80$ GeV

Corrected $m(HH)$ distribution in the resolved $4b$ signal region (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the $4b$ points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (teal histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The final bin includes overflow. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed, dotted, and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. The bottom panel shows the difference between the $4b$ distribution and the background model, relative to the background model. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

Corrected $m(HH)$ distribution in the resolved $4b$ signal region (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the $4b$ points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (teal histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The final bin includes overflow. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed, dotted, and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. The bottom panel shows the difference between the $4b$ distribution and the background model, relative to the background model. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The steps up to the $b$-tag categorization are shown for the spin-0.

Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The steps up to the $b$-tag categorization are shown for the spin-2.

Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The efficiencies of the three b-tag categories are shown for the spin-0 scenario; this efficiency is obtained after the other selection steps including the SR definition. The signal efficiency in the 4b region has a maximum around 1.5 TeV. Above that value the track-jets start to merge together, and for the highest resonance masses the 2b category becomes the most efficient.

Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The efficiencies of the three b-tag categories are shown for the spin-2 scenario; this efficiency is obtained after the other selection steps including the SR definition. The signal efficiency in the 4b region has a maximum around 1.5 TeV. Above that value the track-jets start to merge together, and for the highest resonance masses the 2b category becomes the most efficient.

Comparison of the background model (stacked histograms) with data (dots) in the $2b$ validation region. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background uncertainty (gray band) is computed by adding all individual components in quadrature and is not allowed to extend below zero.

Comparison of the background model (stacked histograms) with data (dots) in the $3b$ validation region. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background uncertainty (gray band) is computed by adding all individual components in quadrature and is not allowed to extend below zero.

Comparison of the background model (stacked histograms) with data (dots) in the $4b$ validation region. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background uncertainty (gray band) is computed by adding all individual components in quadrature and is not allowed to extend below zero.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $2b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $2b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $3b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $3b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $4b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $4b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

Expected (dashed black lines) and observed (solid black lines) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $HH$ production in the spin-0 signal models. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits (colored bands) are shown. Expected limits using each of the resolved and boosted channels individually (dashed colored lines) are shown. The nominal $H\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ branching ratio is taken as 0.582.

Expected (dashed black lines) and observed (solid black lines) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $HH$ production in the spin-2 signal models. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits (colored bands) are shown. Expected limits using each of the resolved and boosted channels individually (dashed colored lines) are shown. The theoretical prediction for the bulk RS model with $k/\bar{M}_{\text{Pl}} = 1$ (solid red line) is shown; the decrease below 350 GeV is due to a sharp reduction in the $G^{*}_{\text{KK}} \rightarrow HH$ branching ratio. The nominal $H\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ branching ratio is taken as 0.582.

The number of data and fitted simulated events in each bin of the $|d_{0}^{\mu}|$ distribution in the $10<p_{\textrm{T}}^{\mu}<20$ GeV selection in the $\mu-\mu$ channel.

The number of data and fitted simulated events in each bin of the $|d_{0}^{\mu}|$ distribution in the $20<p_{\textrm{T}}^{\mu}<250$ GeV selection in the $e-\mu$ channel.

The number of data and fitted simulated events in each bin of the $|d_{0}^{\mu}|$ distribution in the $20<p_{\textrm{T}}^{\mu}<250$ GeV selection in the $\mu-\mu$ channel.

The measurement of the ratio of the rate of decay of W bosons to τ-leptons and muons, $R(\tau/\mu)=B(W\rightarrow\tau\nu_\tau)/B(W\rightarrow \mu\nu_\mu)$.

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.

Measured integrated cross sections for the $Z\gamma\gamma$ process for neutrino final state at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV in the extended fiducial regions defined in the paper, table 5. The parton-to-particle correction factors are also shown, which are defined as the ratio of the cross sections at parton-level to the cross sections at particle-level.

The differential cross sections as a function of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ for the $pp \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}\gamma$ process in the inclusive $N_{\mathrm{jets}} \geq 0$ extended fiducial region. The parton-to-particle correction factors are also shown, which are defined as the ratio of the cross sections at parton-level to the cross sections at particle-level.

The differential cross sections as a function of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ for the $pp \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}\gamma$ process in the exclusive $N_{\mathrm{jets}} = 0$ extended fiducial region. The parton-to-particle correction factors are also shown, which are defined as the ratio of the cross sections at parton-level to the cross sections at particle-level.

The differential cross sections as a function of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ for the $pp \rightarrow \nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ process in the inclusive $N_{\mathrm{jets}} \geq 0$ extended fiducial region. The parton-to-particle correction factors are also shown, which are defined as the ratio of the cross sections at parton-level to the cross sections at particle-level.

The differential cross sections as a function of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ for the $pp \rightarrow \nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ process in the exclusive $N_{\mathrm{jets}} = 0$ extended fiducial region. The parton-to-particle correction factors are also shown, which are defined as the ratio of the cross sections at parton-level to the cross sections at particle-level.

The differential cross sections as a function of $m_{\ell^{+}\ell^{-}\gamma}$ for the $pp \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}\gamma$ process in the inclusive $N_{\mathrm{jets}} \geq 0$ extended fiducial region. The parton-to-particle correction factors are also shown, which are defined as the ratio of the cross sections at parton-level to the cross sections at particle-level.

The differential cross sections as a function of $m_{\ell^{+}\ell^{-}\gamma}$ for the $pp \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}\gamma$ process in the exclusive $N_{\mathrm{jets}} = 0$ extended fiducial region. The parton-to-particle correction factors are also shown, which are defined as the ratio of the cross sections at parton-level to the cross sections at particle-level.

The cross sections as a function of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ for the $pp \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}\gamma$ process in the extended fiducial region. The parton-to-particle correction factors are also shown, which are defined as the ratio of the cross sections at parton-level to the cross sections at particle-level.

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

The average charged particle multiplicity for the more central jet and a charged particle threshold of 0.5 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.

The average charged particle multiplicity for the more central jet and a charged particle threshold of 2 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.

The average charged particle multiplicity for the more central jet and a charged particle threshold of 5 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.

The average charged particle multiplicity differnce between the more forward and the more central jets and a charged particle threshold of 0.5 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.

The average charged particle multiplicity differnce between the more forward and the more central jets and a charged particle threshold of 2 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.

The average charged particle multiplicity differnce between the more forward and the more central jets and a charged particle threshold of 5 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.

The average charged particle multiplicity for the sum of the more forward and the more central jets and a charged particle threshold of 0.5 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.

The average charged particle multiplicity for the sum of the more forward and the more central jets and a charged particle threshold of 2 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.

The average charged particle multiplicity for the sum of the more forward and the more central jets and a charged particle threshold of 5 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.