Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production for $B\bar{B}$ in the singlet model.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production for $T\bar{T}$ in the doublet model.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production, considereing both $T\bar{T}$ and $B\bar{B}$, in the $(T,B)$ doublet model.

Expected 95% CL lower limits on the vector-like top quark mass as a function of the branching ratios into $Wb$ and $Ht$.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on the vector-like top quark mass as a function of the branching ratios into $Wb$ and $Ht$.

Expected 95% CL lower limits on the vector-like bottom quark mass as a function of the branching ratios into $Hb$ and $Wt$.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on the vector-like top quark mass as a function of the branching ratios into $Hb$ and $Wt$.

The expected upper limits on the production cross-section times the product of branching ratios for the benchmark signal scenario involving a scalar particle $X$ with narrow width decaying via $X\rightarrow aa\rightarrow 4\gamma$, $\sigma_X\times B(X\rightarrow aa)\times B(a\rightarrow\gamma\gamma)^2$. The limits for $m_{a}$ = 5 GeV and 10 GeV do not cover as large a range as the other mass points, since the region of interest is limited to $ m_{a} < 0.01 \times m_{X}$. Additionally, the expected limits are not provided for a small number of points, indicated with a hyphen, because of a technical failure with the computation.

The observed upper limits on the production cross-section times the product of branching ratios for the benchmark signal scenario involving a scalar particle $X$ with narrow width decaying via $X\rightarrow aa\rightarrow 6\pi^0$, $\sigma_X\times B(X\rightarrow aa)\times B(a\rightarrow 3\pi^0)^2$. The limits for $m_{a}$ = 5 GeV and 10 GeV do not cover as large a range as the other mass points, since the region of interest is limited to $ m_{a} < 0.01 \times m_{X}$.

The expected upper limits on the production cross-section times the product of branching ratios for the benchmark signal scenario involving a scalar particle $X$ with narrow width decaying via $X\rightarrow aa\rightarrow 6\pi^0$, $\sigma_X\times B(X\rightarrow aa)\times B(a\rightarrow 3\pi^0)^2$. The limits for $m_{a}$ = 5 GeV and 10 GeV do not cover as large a range as the other mass points, since the region of interest is limited to $ m_{a} < 0.01 \times m_{X}$. Additionally, the expected limits are not provided for a small number of points, indicated with a hyphen, because of a technical failure with the computation.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the visible cross section as a function of $m_X$ and the fraction of events in the low-$\Delta E$ category.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.1 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.5 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.7 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 1 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 2 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 5 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 10 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.5 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.7 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 1 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 2 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 5 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 10 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.1 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.5 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.7 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 1 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 2 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 5 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 10 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.5 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.7 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 1 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 2 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 5 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 10 GeV.

Selection efficiency for photons originating from the BSM process $X\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, where the $X$ particle is a high-mass narrow-width scalar particle originating from the gluon--gluon fusion process.

Fraction of photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for photons originating from the BSM process $X\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, where the $X$ particle is a high-mass narrow-width scalar particle originating from the gluon--gluon fusion process.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the c-tag Signal Region of the $ ce$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the b-tag Signal Region of the $ ce$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the untagged Signal Region of the $ c\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the c-tag Signal Region of the $ c\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the b-tag Signal Region of the $ c\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the 0-tag Signal Region of the $ be$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the 1-tag Signal Region of the $ be$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the 2-tag Signal Region of the $ be$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the 0-tag Signal Region of the $ b\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the 1-tag Signal Region of the $ b\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the 2-tag Signal Region of the $ b\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into electrons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $qe$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into muons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $q\mu$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into electrons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $ce$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into muons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $c\mu$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into electrons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $be$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into muons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $b\mu$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $qe$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $q\mu$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $ce$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $c\mu$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $be$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $b\mu$ channel.

The signal selection efficiency x acceptance summed over all signal regions, for all masses and LQ decay channels considered.

The observed and expected limits for all masses and LQ decay channels considered.

Cutflow Table in the electron channel, considering signal samples with LQ mass of 1 TeV.

Cutflow Table in the muon channel, considering signal samples with LQ mass of 1 TeV.

The expected minus one standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The expected plus two standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The expected minus two standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The median expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The expected plus one standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The expected minus one standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The expected plus two standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The expected minus two standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case with mass thresholds.

The observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The median expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The expected plus one standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The expected minus one standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The expected plus two standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The expected minus two standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $ee$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The median expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The expected plus one standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The expected minus one standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The expected plus two standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The expected minus two standard deviation exclusion limit at 95% CL for the clockwork gravity model projected in the $k–M_{5}$ parameter space for the $\gamma\gamma$ channel for the case without mass thresholds.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.

Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.

Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.

Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

Expected background and observed number of events in different jet and $b$-tag multiplicity bins.

Cut flow for a model of top-squark pair production with the top squark decaying to a $b$-quark and a chargino. The chargino decays through the non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda^{''}_{323}$ via a virtual top squark to $bbs$ quark triplets ($m_{\tilde{t}}$ = 800 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}}$ = 750 GeV). The multijet trigger consists of four jets satisfying $p_{\text{T}}\geq(100)120$ GeV for the 2015-2016 (2017-2018) data period. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed. The numbers in $N_{\text{weighted}}$ are normalized by the integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Distribution of the missing transverse momentum $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ for the sample satisfying all requirements of the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ selection except the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ requirement itself. Overlaid are the expected SM backgrounds, separated into the various contributing sources. Also shown are the signal expectations for the ($m_{\tilde{W}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$) = (1000,100) GeV and ($m_{\tilde{W}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$) = (1000,800) GeV models. The vertical dashed lines and right-pointing arrows show the region of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ observable selected for inclusion in $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ and $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$. The lower panels show the ratio of observed data to the combined SM expectation. For these plots, the band represents the range of combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the SM expectation. Events outside the range of the displayed region are included in the highest-value bin.

Distribution of the missing transverse momentum $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ for the sample satisfying all requirements of the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$ selection except the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ requirement itself. Overlaid are the expected SM backgrounds, separated into the various contributing sources. Also shown are the signal expectations for the ($m_{\tilde{W}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$) = (1000,100) GeV and ($m_{\tilde{W}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$) = (1000,800) GeV models. The vertical dashed lines and right-pointing arrows show the region of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ observable selected for inclusion in $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ and $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$. The lower panels show the ratio of observed data to the combined SM expectation. For these plots, the band represents the range of combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the SM expectation. Events outside the range of the displayed region are included in the highest-value bin.

Comparisons between expected and observed content of the validation and signal regions for the photon+jets analysis. The uncertainties in the expected numbers of events are the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties. The lower panel shows the pull (difference between observed and expected event counts normalized by the uncertainty) for each region.

Distribution of the missing transverse momentum $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ for the sample satisfying all requirements of the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ selection except the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ requirement itself. Overlaid are the expected SM backgrounds, separated into the various contributing sources. Also shown are the signal expectations for points in the $m_{\tilde{g}}-m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ parameter space of the GGM model relevant to the photon+jets analysis (mass values in GeV). The value of the gluino mass arises from the choice $M_{3}$ = 1900 GeV. The $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ mass values of 1868, 1920, 442 and 652 GeV arise from the choices $\mu$ = 1810, 1868, 400 and 600 GeV, respectively, combined with the constraint that the branching fraction of $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ $\to \gamma \tilde{G}$ be 50%. The vertical dashed lines and right-pointing arrows show the region of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ observable selected for inclusion in $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ and $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L200}$, the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ requirement is 200 GeV rather than 300 GeV. The lower panels show the ratio of observed data to the combined SM expectation. For these plots, the band represents the range of statistical uncertainty in the SM expectation. Events outside the range of the displayed region are included in the highest-value bin.

Distribution of the missing transverse momentum $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ for the sample satisfying all requirements of the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L200}$ selection except the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ requirement itself. Overlaid are the expected SM backgrounds, separated into the various contributing sources. Also shown are the signal expectations for points in the $m_{\tilde{g}}-m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ parameter space of the GGM model relevant to the photon+jets analysis (mass values in GeV). The value of the gluino mass arises from the choice $M_{3}$ = 1900 GeV. The $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ mass values of 1868, 1920, 442 and 652 GeV arise from the choices $\mu$ = 1810, 1868, 400 and 600 GeV, respectively, combined with the constraint that the branching fraction of $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \to \gamma \tilde{G}$ be 50%. The vertical dashed lines and right-pointing arrows show the region of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ observable selected for inclusion in $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ and $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L200}$, the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ requirement is 200 GeV rather than 300 GeV. The lower panels show the ratio of observed data to the combined SM expectation. For these plots, the band represents the range of statistical uncertainty in the SM expectation. Events outside the range of the displayed region are included in the highest-value bin.

Expected exclusion limits in the gluino-bino mass plane, using the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} > 1600$ GeV and the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} < 1600$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limits in the gluino--bino mass plane, using the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} > 1600$ GeV and the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} < 1600$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limit in the squark-bino mass plane, using the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} > 900$ GeV and the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} < 900$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limit in the squark--bino mass plane, using the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} > 900$ GeV and the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} < 900$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limit in the wino-bino mass plane, using the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} > 400$ GeV and the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ < 400$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limit in the wino-bino mass plane, using the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}} > 400$ GeV and the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ analysis for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ < 400$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limits for the $\mu > 0$ higgsino-bino GGM model explored by the photon+jets analysis.

Observed exclusion limits for the $\mu > 0$ higgsino-bino GGM model explored by the photon+jets analysis.

Distribution of the transverse momentum $p_{\mathrm{T}} (\ell\gamma\gamma)$ of events in the $\ell\gamma\gamma$ control region (except without a cut on $p_{\mathrm{T}} (\ell\gamma\gamma)$). Also shown is the expected contribution from various SM sources, including $W(\to\ell\nu) + \gamma\gamma$ production itself. The displayed uncertainties are a combination of those from all SM sources except $W(\to\ell\nu) + \gamma\gamma$ production, and include statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ for diphoton events in a validation region defined by a requirement of $H_{\mathrm{T}} > 1750$ GeV. Also shown is the expected contribution from various SM sources, as well as their combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ for diphoton events in a validation region defined by requirement of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 100$ GeV. Also shown is the expected contribution from various SM sources, as well as their combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ for events satisfying all requirements $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ save the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement itself. Also shown is the expected contribution from various SM sources, and their combined statistical uncertainties.

Distribution of $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ for events satisfying all requirements $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ save the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement itself. Also shown is the expected contribution from various SM sources, and their combined statistical uncertainties.

Derived exclusion limits for the gluino-bino GGM model explored by the diphoton analysis. For each point in the gluino-bino parameter space, the SR ($\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$) that provides the best expected sensitivity is used to estimate the exclusion likelihood. The model dependent upper limits on cross-section (fb) are shown by grey numbers for each signal point.

Derived exclusion limits for the squark-bino GGM model explored by the diphoton analysis. For each point in the squark-bino parameter space, the SR ($\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$) that provides the best expected sensitivity is used to estimate the exclusion likelihood. The model dependent upper limits on cross-section (fb) are shown by grey numbers for each signal point.

Derived exclusion limits for the wino-bino GGM model explored by the diphoton analysis. For each point in the wino-bino parameter space, the SR ($\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$) that provides the best expected sensitivity is used to estimate the exclusion likelihood. The model dependent upper limits on cross-section (fb) are shown by grey numbers for each signal point.

Derived exclusion limits for the $\mu > 0$ higgsino-bino GGM model explored by the photon+jets analysis. For each point in the higgsino-bino parameter space, the SR ($\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$) that provides the best expected sensitivity is used to estimate the exclusion likelihood. The model dependent upper limits on cross-section (fb) are shown by grey numbers for each signal point.

Derived exclusion limits for the gluino-bino GGM model explored by the diphoton analysis. For each point in the gluino-bino parameter space, the SR ($\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$) that provides the best expected sensitivity is used to estimate the exclusion likelihood. The labels indicate the best-expected signal region for each point, where SL and SH mean $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ and $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$, respectively.

Derived exclusion limits for the squark-bino GGM model explored by the diphoton analysis. For each point in the squark-bino parameter space, the SR ($\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$) that provides the best expected sensitivity is used to estimate the exclusion likelihood. The labels indicate the best-expected signal region for each point, where SL and SH mean $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ and $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$, respectively.

Derived exclusion limits for the wino--bino GGM model explored by the diphoton analysis. For each point in the wino-bino parameter space, the SR ($\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$) that provides the best expected sensitivity is used to estimate the exclusion likelihood. The labels indicate the best-expected signal region for each point, where WL and WH mean $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ and $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$, respectively.

Derived exclusion limits for the $\mu > 0$ higgsino-bino GGM model explored by the photon+jets analysis. For each point in the higgsino-bino parameter space, the SR ($\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ or $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$) that provides the best expected sensitivity is used to estimate the exclusion likelihood. The labels indicate the best-expected signal region for each point, where L and H mean $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ and $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$, respectively.

Acceptance and efficiency for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ for the signal models of the gluino-bino GGM grid.

Acceptance and efficiency for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ for the signal models of the gluino-bino GGM grid.

Acceptance and efficiency for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ for the signal models of the squark-bino GGM grid.

Acceptance and efficiency for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ for the signal models of the squark-bino GGM grid.

Acceptance and efficiency for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ for the signal models of the wino-bino GGM grid.

Acceptance and efficiency for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$ for the signal models of the wino-bino GGM grid.

Acceptance and efficiency for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ for the signal models of the photon+jets GGM grid.

Acceptance and efficiency for $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ for the signal models of the photon+jets GGM grid.

Cutflow for the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ selection for one relevant signal point in the gluino-bino model, where the gluinos have mass of 1900 GeV and the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ has a mass of 300 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ selection for one relevant signal point in the gluino-bino model, where the gluinos have mass of 1900 GeV and the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ has a mass of 1700 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ selection for one relevant signal point in the squark-bino model, where the squarks have mass of 1700 GeV and the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ has a mass of 200 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ selection for one relevant signal point in the squark-bino model, where the squarks have mass of 1700 GeV and the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ has a mass of 1600 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ selection for one relevant signal point in the wino-bino model, where the winos have mass of 1000 GeV and the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ has a mass of 200 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$ selection for one relevant signal point in the wino-bino model, where the winos have mass of 1000 GeV and the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ has a mass of 800 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ selection, for two relevant signal points in the higgsino-bino model, where the gluinos have mass of 1974 GeV and the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ has a mass of 442 GeV (10000 generated events), and 652 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the $\mathrm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ selection, for two relevant signal points in the higgsino-bino model, where the gluinos have mass of 1974 GeV and the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ has a mass of 1868 GeV (10000 generated events), and 1920 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Expected exclusion limits in the gluino-neutralino mass plane, for the higgsino-bino GGM model with $\mu < 0$, using the merged $\rm{SR}^{\gamma b}_{L}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma b}_{H}$ analyses.

Observed exclusion limits in the $M_3$-$\mu$ plane, for the higgsino-bino GGM model with $\mu > 0$, using the merged $\rm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ analyses.

Expected exclusion limits in the $M_3$-$\mu$ plane, for the higgsino-bino GGM model with $\mu > 0$, using the merged $\rm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ analyses.

Contour of exclusion in wino production cross section from the photon+$\ell$ analysis, as a function of the wino mass parameter $m_{\tilde{W}}$. The expected limit is shown along with its $\pm 1$ and $\pm 2$ standard deviation values.

Numbers of selected data events at progressive stages of the selection, for each SR for the diphoton, photon+j and photon+$\ell$ analyses. Where no number is shown the cut was not applied.

Expected number of signal events at progressive stages of the selection, shown for points in the parameter space that typify the region for which each selection of the diphoton, photon+j and photon+$\ell$ analyses is optimized, and scaled to an integrated luminosity of $20.3\,\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$. Where no number is shown the cut was not applied.

Expected number of signal events at progressive stages of the $\rm{SR}^{\gamma b}_{H}$ selection, shown for data and signal Monte Carlo datasets.

Expected number of signal events at progressive stages of the $\rm{SR}^{\gamma b}_{L}$ selection, shown for data and signal Monte Carlo datasets.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency across the strong-production parameter space, for $m_{\tilde{g}}$ between 1550 and 1600 GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency across the strong-production parameter space, for $m_{\tilde{g}} = 1500$ GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency across the strong-production parameter space, for $m_{\tilde{g}}$ between 1350 and 1450 GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency across the strong-production parameter space, for $m_{\tilde{g}}$ between 1250 and 1300 GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency across the strong-production parameter space, for $m_{\tilde{g}}$ between 1150 and 1200 GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{S-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency across the strong-production parameter space, for $m_{\tilde{g}}$ between 1000 and 1100 GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency for $m_{\tilde{W}}$ between 650 and 800 GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency for $m_{\tilde{W}}$ between 400 and 600 GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-H}$ and $\rm{SR}^{\gamma\gamma}_{W-L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency for $m_{\tilde{W}}$ between 100 and 400 GeV.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma b}_{H}$ signal acceptance*efficiency for combined strong and weak production across the $\mu<0$ higgsino-bino parameter space.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma b}_{L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency for combined strong and weak production across the $\mu<0$ higgsino-bino parameter space.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{H}$ signal acceptance*efficiency for combined strong and weak production across the $\mu>0$ higgsino-bino parameter space.

$\rm{SR}^{\gamma j}_{L}$ signal acceptance*efficiency for combined strong and weak production across the $\mu>0$ higgsino-bino parameter space.

Acceptance-times-efficiency (a*e) for the photon+$\ell$ analysis SRs.

The total NLO+NLL strong production cross sections with uncertainties for GGM gluino-neutralino signal points for the diphoton and photon+b analyses. In the variant of the grid used in the diphoton analysis, the electroweak production cross section is negligible.

The total NLO cross sections with uncertainties for GGM wino-bino signal points, for all final states, for the diphoton analysis. The direct bino production cross section is negligible.

The NLO gaugino pair production cross sections with relative uncertainties for GGM gluino-neutralino signal points for the photon+b analysis.

The best signal region used for each signal point in the photon+b analysis.

The total NLO+NLL cross sections with uncertainties for the strong production GGM signal grid for the photon+j analysis.

The total NLO cross sections with uncertainties for the electroweak production GGM signal grid for the photon+j analysis.

The best signal region used for each signal point in the photon+j analysis.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section times branching fraction as a function of the resonance pole mass for the G$^*$. The LO theoretical cross section for the G$^*$ production is also shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section times branching fraction as a function of the resonance pole mass for the EGM W'. The NNLO theoretical cross section for the EGM W' production is also shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section in the ZH channel.

Signal acceptance times efficiency of HVT WH(qqbb) events as a function of the resonance mass at different cut stages. Auxiliary table attached for 2 TeV mass point.

Signal acceptance times efficiency of HVT WH(qqbb) events as a function of the resonance mass at different cut stages. Auxiliary table attached for 2 TeV mass point.

Signal acceptance times efficiency of HVT ZH(qqbb) events as a function of the resonance mass at different cut stages. Auxiliary table attached for 4 TeV mass point.

Signal acceptance times efficiency of HVT ZH(qqbb) events as a function of the resonance mass at different cut stages. Auxiliary table attached for 4 TeV mass point.

Dijet mass distributions in the WH 1-tag signal region. Uncertainties in the background and signal histograms are set to zero. The signal corresponds to that expected for HVT model B with resonance mass of 2 TeV.

Dijet mass distributions in the WH 2-tag signal region. Uncertainties in the background and signal histograms are set to zero. The signal corresponds to that expected for HVT model B with resonance mass of 2 TeV.

Dijet mass distributions in the ZH 1-tag signal region. Uncertainties in the background and signal histograms are set to zero. The signal corresponds to that expected for HVT model B with resonance mass of 2 TeV.

Dijet mass distributions in the ZH 2-tag signal region. Uncertainties in the background and signal histograms are set to zero. The signal corresponds to that expected for HVT model B with resonance mass of 2 TeV.