Limit

Limit

Limit

Limit

Limit

Measured total production cross sections of WW production in the total phase space. Both, resonant and non-resonant WW, production are considered as signal.

Fractions of selected events for several signal MC samples with a mass difference $\Delta m = 100$ GeV, illustrating how $\mathcal{A}\times\varepsilon$ varies with the model parameters.

Two-dimensional distribution of $m_{\mathrm{DV}}$ and track multiplicity for DVs in data events and events of a $R$-hadron signal sample with $m_{\tilde{g}} = 1.4$ TeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 100$ GeV and $\tau_{\tilde{g}} = 1$ ns that satisfy all signal region event selection criteria.

Two-dimensional distribution of $m_{\mathrm{DV}}$ and track multiplicity for DVs in data events and events of a $R$-hadron signal sample with $m_{\tilde{g}} = 1.4$ TeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 1.32$ TeV and $\tau_{\tilde{g}} = 1$ ns that satisfy all signal region event selection criteria.

Observed cross section upper 95% CL limits as a function of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}=100$ GeV. For the mass limits see the entry of Figure 8b.

Upper 95% CL limits on the signal cross section for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1.4$ TeV and fixed $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}=100$ GeV as a function of lifetime $\tau$.

Vertex reconstruction efficiency as a function of radial position $R$ with and without the special LRT processing for one $R$-hadron signal sample with $m_{\tilde{g}} = 1.2$ TeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 100$ GeV and $\tau_{\tilde{g}} = 1$ ns. The efficiency is defined as the probability for a true LLP decay to be matched with a reconstructed DV fulfilling the vertex preselection criteria in events with a reconstructed primary vertex.

Upper 95% CL limits on the signal cross section for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2.0$ TeV and fixed $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}=100$ GeV as a function of lifetime $\tau$.

Vertex reconstruction efficiency as a function of radial position $R$ for two $R$-hadron signal samples with $m_{\tilde{g}} = 1.2$ TeV, $\tau_{\tilde{g}} = 1$ ns and different neutralino masses. The efficiency is defined as the probability for a true LLP decay to be matched with a reconstructed DV fulfilling the vertex preselection criteria in events with a reconstructed primary vertex.

Lower 95% CL limits on $m_{\tilde{g}}$ for fixed $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}=100$ GeV as a function of lifetime $\tau$.

Fractions of selected events for several signal MC samples with a gluino lifetime $\tau = 1$ ns, illustrating how $\mathcal{A}\times\varepsilon$ varies with the model parameters.

Upper 95% CL limits on the signal cross section for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1.4$ TeV and fixed $\Delta m=100$ GeV as a function of lifetime $\tau$.

Fractions of selected events for several signal MC samples with a mass difference $\Delta m = 100$ GeV, illustrating how $\mathcal{A}\times\varepsilon$ varies with the model parameters.

Upper 95% CL limits on the signal cross section for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2.0$ TeV and fixed $\Delta m=100$ GeV as a function of lifetime $\tau$.

Two-dimensional distribution of $m_{\mathrm{DV}}$ and track multiplicity for DVs in data events and events of a $R$-hadron signal sample with $m_{\tilde{g}} = 1.4$ TeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 100$ GeV and $\tau_{\tilde{g}} = 1$ ns that satisfy all signal region event selection criteria.

Lower 95% CL limit on $m_{\tilde{g}}$ for fixed $\Delta m=100$ GeV as a function of lifetime $\tau$.

Two-dimensional distribution of $m_{\mathrm{DV}}$ and track multiplicity for DVs in data events and events of a $R$-hadron signal sample with $m_{\tilde{g}} = 1.4$ TeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 1.32$ TeV and $\tau_{\tilde{g}} = 1$ ns that satisfy all signal region event selection criteria.

Upper 95% CL limits on the signal cross section for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1.4$ TeV and fixed $\tau=1$ ns as a function of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$.

Upper 95% CL limits on the signal cross section for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1.4$ TeV and fixed $\Delta m=100$ GeV as a function of lifetime $\tau$.

Upper 95% CL limits on the signal cross section for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2.0$ TeV and fixed $\tau=1$ ns as a function of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$.

Upper 95% CL limits on the signal cross section for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2.0$ TeV and fixed $\Delta m=100$ GeV as a function of lifetime $\tau$.

Observed 95% CL limit as a function of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$ for fixed $\tau=1$ ns.

Lower 95% CL limit on $m_{\tilde{g}}$ for fixed $\Delta m=100$ GeV as a function of lifetime $\tau$.

Two-dimensional distributions of $x$-$y$ positions of vertices observed in the data passing the vertex pre-selection and satisfying all signal region event-level requirements.

Two-dimensional distributions of $x$-$y$ positions of vertices observed in the data passing the vertex pre-selection and satisfying all signal region event-level requirements.

Distribution of the mass $m_{\mathrm{DV}}$ for vertices in data events and in events of five $R$-hadron signal samples with $m_{\tilde{g}} = 1.2$ TeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 100$ GeV and different $\tau_{\tilde{g}}$ that satisfy the signal region event requirements. All DV selections are applied except for the $m_{\mathrm{DV}}$ and track multiplicity requirements.

Distribution of the mass $m_{\mathrm{DV}}$ for vertices in data events and in events of five $R$-hadron signal samples with $m_{\tilde{g}} = 1.2$ TeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 100$ GeV and different $\tau_{\tilde{g}}$ that satisfy the signal region event requirements. All DV selections are applied except for the $m_{\mathrm{DV}}$ and track multiplicity requirements.

Distribution of the track multiplicity $n_{\mathrm{Tracks}}$ for vertices in data events and events of five $R$-hadron signal samples with $m_{\tilde{g}} = 1.2$ TeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 100$ GeV and and different $\tau_{\tilde{g}}$ that satisfy the signal region event requirements. All DV selections are applied except for the $m_{\mathrm{DV}}$ and track multiplicity requirements. The track multiplicity distribution requires vertices to have $m_{\mathrm{DV}}>3$ GeV.

Distribution of the track multiplicity $n_{\mathrm{Tracks}}$ for vertices in data events and events of five $R$-hadron signal samples with $m_{\tilde{g}} = 1.2$ TeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 100$ GeV and and different $\tau_{\tilde{g}}$ that satisfy the signal region event requirements. All DV selections are applied except for the $m_{\mathrm{DV}}$ and track multiplicity requirements. The track multiplicity distribution requires vertices to have $m_{\mathrm{DV}}>3$ GeV.

Observed cross section upper 95% CL limits as a function of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}=100$ GeV. For the mass limits see the entry of Figure 8b.

Observed cross section upper 95% CL limits as a function of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $\tau$ for $\Delta m=100$ GeV. For the mass limits see the entry of Figure 9b.

Observed cross section upper 95% CL limits as a function of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $\tau$ for $\Delta m=100$ GeV. For the mass limits see the entry of Figure 9b.

Observed cross section upper 95% CL limits as a function of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$ and $m_{\tilde{g}}$ for $\tau = 1$ ns. For the mass limits see the entry of Figure 10b.

Observed cross section upper 95% CL limits as a function of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$ and $m_{\tilde{g}}$ for $\tau = 1$ ns. For the mass limits see the entry of Figure 10b.

Parameterized event selection efficiencies as a function of truth MET for events which have all truth decay vertices occurring before the start of the ATLAS calorimeter. Event-level efficiencies are evaluated for events that have truth MET $> 200$ GeV, pass the trackless jet requirement, and have at least one displaced truth decay within the fiducial volume. To satisfy the event-level efficiency, events must then pass the full event selection.

Parameterized event selection efficiencies as a function of truth MET for events which have all truth decay vertices occurring before the start of the ATLAS calorimeter. Event-level efficiencies are evaluated for events that have truth MET $> 200$ GeV, pass the trackless jet requirement, and have at least one displaced truth decay within the fiducial volume. To satisfy the event-level efficiency, events must then pass the full event selection.

Parameterized event selection efficiencies as a function of truth MET for events which have the furthest truth decay occurring inside the calorimeter. Event-level efficiencies are evaluated for events that have truth MET $> 200$ GeV, pass the trackless jet requirement, and have at least one displaced truth decay within the fiducial volume. To satisfy the event-level efficiency, events must then pass the full event selection.

Parameterized event selection efficiencies as a function of truth MET for events which have the furthest truth decay occurring inside the calorimeter. Event-level efficiencies are evaluated for events that have truth MET $> 200$ GeV, pass the trackless jet requirement, and have at least one displaced truth decay within the fiducial volume. To satisfy the event-level efficiency, events must then pass the full event selection.

Parameterized event selection efficiencies as a function of truth MET for events which have the furthest truth decay occurring after the end of the ATLAS calorimeter. Event-level efficiencies are evaluated for events that have truth MET $> 200$ GeV, pass the trackless jet requirement, and have at least one displaced truth decay within the fiducial volume. To satisfy the event-level efficiency, events must then pass the full event selection.

Parameterized event selection efficiencies as a function of truth MET for events which have the furthest truth decay occurring after the end of the ATLAS calorimeter. Event-level efficiencies are evaluated for events that have truth MET $> 200$ GeV, pass the trackless jet requirement, and have at least one displaced truth decay within the fiducial volume. To satisfy the event-level efficiency, events must then pass the full event selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 22$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 22$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $22$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 25$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $22$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 25$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $25$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 29$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $25$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 29$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Upper 95% CL limits on the signal cross section for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1.4$ TeV and fixed $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}=100$ GeV as a function of lifetime $\tau$.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $29$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 38$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $29$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 38$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Upper 95% CL limits on the signal cross section for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2.0$ TeV and fixed $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}=100$ GeV as a function of lifetime $\tau$.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $38$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 46$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $38$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 46$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Lower 95% CL limits on $m_{\tilde{g}}$ for fixed $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}=100$ GeV as a function of lifetime $\tau$.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $46$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 73$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $46$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 73$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $73$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 84$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $73$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 84$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $84$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 111$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $84$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 111$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $111$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 120$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $111$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 120$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Upper 95% CL limits on the signal cross section for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1.4$ TeV and fixed $\tau=1$ ns as a function of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $120$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 145$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $120$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 145$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Upper 95% CL limits on the signal cross section for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2.0$ TeV and fixed $\tau=1$ ns as a function of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $145$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 180$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $145$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 180$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Observed 95% CL limit as a function of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$ for fixed $\tau=1$ ns.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $180$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Parameterized vertex level efficiencies as a function of number of particles associated to a truth decay vertex, and the vertex invariant mass for truth decays with $180$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm. Selected particles are required to have nonzero electric charge, $p_{T}(|Q|=1) > 1$ GeV, and $d_0 > 2$ mm. The per-vertex efficiency is evaluated only for truth vertices that have at least 5 associated tracks, an invariant mass $> 10$ GeV, and are in the region $4$ mm $< R_{\mathrm{decay}} < 300$ mm, and $|Z_{\mathrm{decay}}| < 300$ mm. A truth vertex satisfies the vertex level efficiency if it can be matched to a reconstructed DV which passes the final vertex selection.

Upper limits on the fiducial cross section times branching ratio to two photons at centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV of a narrow-width (Γ_X = 4 MeV) spin-0 resonance as a function of its mass m_X.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio to two photons at centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV of the lightest KK graviton as a function of its mass m_G* for k/MPl=0.01.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio to two photons at centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV of the lightest KK graviton as a function of its mass m_G* for k/MPl=0.10. Only the limits derived with the asymptotic formulae are quoted here.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio to two photons at centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV of the lightest KK graviton as a function of its mass m_G* for k/MPl=0.20.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio to two photons at centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV of the lightest KK graviton as a function of its mass m_G* for k/MPl=0.30.

Distribution of the diphoton invariant mass for data events passing the spin-0 selection. The data points are plotted at the centre of each bin. The error bars indicate statistical uncertainties. The distribution consists of not only genuine diphoton events, but also events where at least one photon is faked by a jet. There is no data event above 2700 GeV.

Distribution of the diphoton invariant mass for data events passing the spin-2 selection. The data points are plotted at the centre of each bin. The error bars indicate statistical uncertainties. The distribution consists of not only genuine diphoton events, but also events where at least one photon is faked by a jet. There is no data event above 2700 GeV.

Fiducial acceptance and product of the fiducial acceptance times the combined reconstruction and identification efficiency as a function of the mass for a spin-0 resonant signal with narrow width under the spin-0 selection. Only MC statistical uncertainties are included.

Fiducial acceptance and product of the fiducial acceptance times the combined reconstruction and identification efficiency as a function of the mass for a spin-2 resonant signal with k/MPl=0.1 under the spin-2 selection. The definition of fiducial region is provided in JHEP 09 (2016) 001. Only MC statistical uncertainties are included.

Fiducial acceptance and product of the fiducial acceptance times the combined reconstruction and identification efficiency as a function of the mass for an ADD excess (GRW formalism), calculated as the difference between the sum of ADD and SM contributions (including their interference) and the SM contribution, under the spin-2 selection in the signal region M(gamma gamma)>2240 GeV. The definition of fiducial region is provided in JHEP 09 (2016) 001, and M(gamma gamma)>2240 GeV is required in addition. Only MC statistical uncertainties are included.

Multiplicity of additional jets with pt>80GeV

Transverse momentum of leading b-jet

Transverse momentum of sub-leading b-jet

Transverse momentum of leading (highest pt) additional jet

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<0.8 as a function of Q0

Measured Gap fraction within 0.8<|y|<1.5 as a function of Q0

Measured Gap fraction within 1.5<|y|<2.1 as a function of Q0

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of Q0

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of Q0 for invariant mass region m_{emubb} < 300GeV

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of Q0 for invariant mass region 300 GeV < m_{emubb} < 425GeV

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of Q0 for invariant mass region 425 GeV< m_{emubb} < 600GeV

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of Q0 for invariant mass region m_{emubb} > 600GeV

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<0.8 as a function of QSUM

Measured Gap fraction within 0.8<|y|<1.5 as a function of QSUM

Measured Gap fraction within 1.5<|y|<2.1 as a function of QSUM

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of QSUM

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of QSUM for invariant mass region m_{emubb} < 300GeV

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of QSUM for invariant mass region 300 GeV < m_{emubb} < 425 GeV

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of QSUM for invariant mass region 425GeV< m_{emubb} < 600GeV

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of QSUM for invariant mass region m_{emubb} > 600GeV

Expected allowed ranges for 8 dimensional aQGC, no cutoff).

Inclusive Cross Section.

Fit results in SRt1, SRt2 and SRt3 for an integrated luminosity of $36.1 fb^{-1}$. The background normalisation parameters are obtained from the background-only fit in the CRs and are applied to the SRs. Small backgrounds are indicated as Others. Benchmark signal models yields are given for each SR. The uncertainties on the yields include all systematic uncertainties.

95% CL upper limits on the visible cross-section ($\langle\epsilon\mathcal{A}\sigma\rangle^{\rm obs}_{95}$) and on the number of BSM events ($S^{\rm obs}_{95}$ ). The third column ($S^{\rm exp}_{95}$) shows the 95% CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last column indicates the discovery $p$-value ($p(s = 0)$) and Z (the number of equivalent Gaussian standard deviations).

Comparison of the data with the post-fit SM prediction of the $E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ distribution in SRb1. The last bins include overflows, where applicable. All signal region requirements except the one on the distribution shown are applied. The signal region requirement on the distribution shown is indicated by an arrow. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit SM prediction of the $\cos{\theta}^*_{bb}$ distribution in SRb2. The last bins include overflows, where applicable. All signal region requirements except the one on the distribution shown are applied. The signal region requirement on the distribution shown is indicated by an arrow. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit SM prediction of the $m_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{b,min}}$ distribution in SRt1. The last bins include overflows, where applicable. All signal region requirements except the one on the distribution shown are applied. The signal region requirement on the distribution shown is indicated by an arrow. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit SM prediction of the $E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss,sig}}$ distribution in SRt2. The last bins include overflows, where applicable. All signal region requirements except the one on the distribution shown are applied. The signal region requirement on the distribution shown is indicated by an arrow. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit SM prediction of the $\xi^{+}_{\ell\ell}$ distribution in SRt3. The last bins include overflows, where applicable. All signal region requirements except the one on the distribution shown are applied. The signal region requirement on the distribution shown is indicated by an arrow. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in the SRb2 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in SRb2 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in the SRt1/SRt2 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$. To derive the results for the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ final state the region among SRt1 and SRt2 providing the best expected sensitivity is used.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in SRt1/SRt2 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$. To derive the results for the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ final state the region among SRt1 and SRt2 providing the best expected sensitivity is used.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in SRt3 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in SRt3 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRb2 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRb2 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRt1/SRt2 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$. To derive the results for the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ final state the region among SRt1 and SRt2 providing the best expected sensitivity is used.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRt1/SRt2 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$. To derive the results for the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ final state the region among SRt1 and SRt2 providing the best expected sensitivity is used.

Expected limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRt3 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRt3 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in SRt1/SRt2 as a function of the DM mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$. To derive the results for the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ final state the region among SRt1 and SRt2 providing the best expected sensitivity is used.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in SRt1/SRt2 as a function of the DM mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$. To derive the results for the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ final state the region among SRt1 and SRt2 providing the best expected sensitivity is used.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in SRt3 as a function of the DM mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in SRt3 as a function of the DM mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRt1/SRt2 as a function of the DM mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$. To derive the results for the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ final state the region among SRt1 and SRt2 providing the best expected sensitivity is used.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRt1/SRt2 as a function of the DM mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$. To derive the results for the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ final state the region among SRt1 and SRt2 providing the best expected sensitivity is used.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRt3 as a function of the DM mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Observed xclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRt3 as a function of the DM mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Comparison of the 90% CL limits on the spin-independent DM–nucleon cross-section versus mediator mass between these results and the direct-detection experiments, in the context of the colour-neutral simplified model with scalar mediator. The black line indicates the exclusion contour derived from the observed limits of SRt3. Values inside the contour are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-charged scalar mediators ($b$-FDM) as a function of the mediator and DM masses for $36.1fb^{-1}$ of data. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L for a coupling assumption $\lambda_b$ yielding the measured relic density.

Exclusion observed limits for colour-charged scalar mediators ($b-$FDM) as a function of the mediator and DM masses for $36.1fb^{-1}$ of data. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L for a coupling assumption $\lambda_b$ yielding the measured relic density.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit Monte Carlo prediction of sub leading jet $p_{T}$ in SRb1. The last bin includes overflows. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the Monte Carlo prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit Monte Carlo prediction of $H_{\mathrm T}^{ratio}$ distribution in SRb2. The last bin includes overflows. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the Monte Carlo prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit Monte Carlo prediction of $\Delta R_{bb}$ in SRt1. The last bin includes overflows. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the Monte Carlo prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit Monte Carlo prediction of $M_{\mathrm T}^{b,min}$ in SRt2. The last bin includes overflows. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the Monte Carlo prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit Monte Carlo prediction of $\Delta \phi_{boost}$ in SRt3. The last bin includes overflows. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the Monte Carlo prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Acceptance of the SRb1 selection of the $b$-FDM model signal samples

Efficiency of the SRb1 selection of the $b$-FDM model signal samples

Acceptance of the SRb2 selection of the colour-neutral simplified model samples with scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with bottom-quark pairs.

Efficiency of the SRb2 selection to the colour-neutral simplified model samples with scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with bottom-quark pairs

Efficiency of the SRb2 selection to the colour-neutral simplified model samples with pseudo-scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with bottom-quark pairs

Acceptance of SRb2 selection to the colour-neutral simplified model samples with pseudo-scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with bottom-quark pairs

Acceptance of the SRt2 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Acceptance of the SRt1 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Efficiency of the SRt2 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Efficiency of the SRt1 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Acceptance of the SRt2 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with pseudo-scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Acceptance of the SRt1 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with pseudo-scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Efficiency of the SRt2 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with pseudo-scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Efficiency of the SRt1 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with pseudo-scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Acceptance of the SRt3 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Efficiency of the SRt3 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Acceptance of the SRt3 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with pseudo-scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Efficiency of the SRt3 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with pseudo-scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Number of signal events selected at different stages of the SRb1 selections for the $b$-FDM benchmark model $m(\phi_b,\chi)=(1000,35)$GeV

Number of signal events selected at different stages of the SRb2 selections for the $b\bar{b} +\phi$ benchmark model $m(\phi,\chi)=(20,1)$GeV, $g=1$.

Number of signal events selected at different stages of the SRt1 selections for the $t \bar{t} +\phi$ benchmark model $m(\phi,\chi)=(20,1)$GeV, $g=1$.

Number of signal events selected at different stages of the SRt2 selections for the $t \bar{t} +\phi$ benchmark model $m(\phi,\chi)=(20,1)$GeV, $g=1$.

Number of signal events selected at different stages of the SRt1 selections for the $t \bar{t} +a$ benchmark model $m(a,\chi)=(20,1)$GeV, $g=1$.

Number of signal events selected at different stages of the SRt2 selections for the $t \bar{t} +a$ benchmark model $m(\phi,\chi)=(20,1)$GeV, $g=1$.

Number of signal events selected at different stages of the SRt3 selections for the $t \bar{t} +\phi$ benchmark model $m(\phi,\chi)=(20,1)$GeV, $g=1$.

Figure 2, right, subfigure b, Transverse mass distribution in the VBF top-quark control regions. For NWA signals, the "0" value means lack of statistics.

Figure 3, left, subfigure a, Transverse mass distribution in the quasi-inclusive ggF WW control regions. The "0" value means lack of statistics.

Figure 3, right, subfigure b, Transverse mass distribution in the quasi-inclusive VBF1Jet WW control regions. The "0" value means lack of statistics.

Figure 4, top left, subfigure a, post-fit distributions of the transverse mass mT in the ggF Signal region. The "0" value means lack of statistics.

Figure 4, top right, subfigure b, post-fit distributions of the transverse mass mT in the VBF1Jet Signal region. The "0" value means lack of statistics.

Figure 4, bottom, subfigure c, post-fit distributions of the transverse mass mT in the VBF2Jet Signal region. The "0" value means lack of statistics.

Figure 5, left, subfigur a, Upper limits at 95% CL on the Higgs boson production cross section times branching fraction in the evmuv channel, for ggF signals with narrow-width lineshape as a function of the signal mass.

Figure 5, right, subfigure b, Upper limits at 95% CL on the Higgs boson production cross section times branching fraction in the evmuv channel, for VBF signals with narrow-width lineshape as a function of the signal mass.

Figure 6, Upper limits at 95% CL on the total ggF and VBF Higgs boson production cross section times branching fraction in the evmuv channel, for a signal at 800 GeV as a function of the ggF cross section divided by the combined ggF and VBF production cross section.

Figure 9, top left, subfigure a, Upper limits at 95% CL on the Higgs boson production cross section times branching fraction for a signal with a width of 15% of the mass for the ggF production.

Figure 9, top right, subfigure b, Upper limits at 95% CL on the Higgs boson production cross section times branching fraction for a signal with a width of 15% of the mass for the VBF production.

Figure 10, left, subfigure a, Upper limits at 95% CL on the resonance production cross section times branching fraction for a GM signal.

Figure 11, left, subfigure a, Upper limits at 95% CL on the resonance production cross section times branching fraction for a HVT qqA signal.

Figure 11, right, subfigure b, Upper limits at 95% CL on the resonance production cross section times branching fraction for a HVT VBF signal.

Figure 12, bottom, subfigure c, Upper limits at 95% CL on the resonance production cross section times branching fraction for an EML spin-2 VBF signal.

Figure 12, top right, subfigure b, Upper limits at 95% CL on the resonance production cross section times branching fraction for a graviton signal with coupling parameter equals 0.5

Figure 12, top left, subfigure a, Upper limits at 95% CL on the resonance production cross section times branching fraction for a graviton signal with coupling parameter equals 1.0

Auxiliary material Figure 2e, Event selection efficiencies in the VBF2J event categories as a function of the signal mass for the ggF or qqA production. The "0" efficiency mass point means there's no such signal sample for the corresponding model.

Auxiliary material Figure 2f, Event selection efficiencies in the VBF2J event categories for different kinds of VBF signals production. The "0" efficiency mass point means there's no such signal sample for the corresponding model.

Auxiliary material Figure 2c, Event selection efficiencies in the VBF1J event categories as a function of the signal mass for the ggF or qqA production. The "0" efficiency mass point means there's no such signal sample for the corresponding model.

Auxiliary material Figure 2d, Event selection efficiencies in the VBF1J event categories for different kinds of VBF signals production. The "0" efficiency mass point means there's no such signal sample for the corresponding model.

Auxiliary material Figure 2a, Event selection efficiencies in the ggF event categories as a function of the signal mass for the ggF or qqA production. The "0" efficiency mass point means there's no such signal sample for the corresponding model.

Auxiliary material Figure 2b, Event selection efficiencies in the ggF event categories for different kinds of VBF signals production. The "0" efficiency mass point means there's no such signal sample for the corresponding model.

Auxiliary material Figure 6a, Upper limits at 95% CL on the Higgs production cross section times branching fraction in the evmuv channel, for a signal with a width of 5% of the mass for the ggF production.

Auxiliary material Figure 6c, Upper limits at 95% CL on the Higgs production cross section times branching fraction in the evmuv channel, for a signal with a width of 10% of the mass for the ggF production.

Auxiliary material Figure 6b, Upper limits at 95% CL on the Higgs production cross section times branching fraction in the evmuv channel, for a signal with a width of 5% of the mass for the VBF production.

Auxiliary material Figure 6d, Upper limits at 95% CL on the Higgs production cross section times branching fraction in the evmuv channel, for a signal with a width of 10% of the mass for the VBF production.

Auxiliary material Figure 7b, Upper limits at 95% CL on the total ggF and VBF Higgs production cross section times branching fraction for a signal at 1.8 TeV as a function of the ggF cross section over the combined ggF and VBF production cross section.

Auxiliary material Figure 7a, Upper limits at 95% CL on the total ggF and VBF Higgs production cross section times branching fraction for a signal at 200 GeV as a function of the ggF cross section over the combined ggF and VBF production cross section.

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 increased by one standard deviation.

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step 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 increased by one standard deviation.

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.

Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.

Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.

Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.

Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid.

Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid.

Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.

Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.

Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.

Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limit for the RPV grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for the RPV grid.

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

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

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

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid.

Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid.

Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.

Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.

Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.

Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-11j50-0b. 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 SR-11j50-0b. 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 SR-11j50-1b. 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 SR-11j50-1b. 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 SR-11j50-2b. 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 SR-11j50-2b. 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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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 SR-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.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-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.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-0b. 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 SR-9j80-0b. 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 SR-9j80-1b. 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 SR-9j80-1b. 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 SR-9j80-2b. 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 SR-9j80-2b. 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 SR-8j50-0b-MJ340. 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 SR-8j50-0b-MJ340. 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 SR-8j50-0b-MJ500. 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 SR-8j50-0b-MJ500. 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 SR-9j50-0b-MJ340. 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 SR-9j50-0b-MJ340. 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 SR-9j50-0b-MJ500. 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 SR-9j50-0b-MJ500. 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 SR-10j50-0b-MJ340. 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 SR-10j50-0b-MJ340. 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 SR-10j50-0b-MJ500. 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 SR-10j50-0b-MJ500. 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 (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with no b-jet requirement and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. 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 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 (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with no b-jet requirement and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. 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 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 (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. 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 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 (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. 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 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 (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. 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 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 (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. 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 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 (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with no b-jet requirement and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. 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 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 (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with no b-jet requirement and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. 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 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 (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. 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 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 (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. 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 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 (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. 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 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 (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. 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 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 (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 340 GeV. 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 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 (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 340 GeV. 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 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 (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 500 GeV. 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 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 (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 500 GeV. 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 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).

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for 2Step signal points for the best-expected signal region.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for 2Step signal points for the best-expected signal region.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for RPV signal points for the best-expected signal region.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for RPV signal points for the best-expected signal region.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for gtt off-shell signal points for the best-expected signal region.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for gtt off-shell signal points for the best-expected signal region.

Performance of the SR-8j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-11j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-11j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-11j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-11j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-11j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-11j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-7j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-7j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-7j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-7j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-7j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-7j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.