Summary of the observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for $\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}$ pair production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}}$ under the assumptions of B=1.

Summary of the observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on B as a function of $m_{\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}}$.

Summary of the observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on B as a function of $m_{\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}}$.

Cutflow of the preselection requirements (see Section 5) for $\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}$ signals with $m_{\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}}$=0.9, 1.1, and 1.3 TeV, assuming B=1. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow of the preselection requirements (see Section 5) for $\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}$ signals with $m_{\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}}$=0.9, 1.1, and 1.3 TeV, assuming B=1. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow of the signal region requirements in 1$\ell+\geq 1\tau$ channel (see Table 3) for $\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}$ signals with $m_{\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}}$=0.9, 1.1, and 1.3 TeV, assuming B=1. Events that satisfy the preselection requirements are considered. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow of the signal region requirements in 1$\ell+\geq 1\tau$ channel (see Table 3) for $\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}$ signals with $m_{\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}}$=0.9, 1.1, and 1.3 TeV, assuming B=1. Events that satisfy the preselection requirements are considered. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow of the signal region requirements in the 2$\ell$OS+$\geq 1\tau$ channel (see Table 4) for $\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}$ signals with $m_{\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}}$=0.9, 1.1, and 1.3 TeV, assuming B=1. Events that satisfy the preselection requirements are considered. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow of the signal region requirements in the 2$\ell$OS+$\geq 1\tau$ channel (see Table 4) for $\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}$ signals with $m_{\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}}$=0.9, 1.1, and 1.3 TeV, assuming B=1. Events that satisfy the preselection requirements are considered. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow of the signal region requirements in the $2\ell$SS/$3\ell+\geq 1\tau$ channel (see Table 5) for $\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}$ signals with $m_{\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}}$=0.9, 1.1, and 1.3 TeV, assuming B=1. Events that satisfy the preselection requirements are considered. In this channel, two signal regions (SR-L and SR-H) are defined based on $p_{\mathrm{T}, 1}^{\tau}$, with SR-L and SR-H requiring $125< p_{\mathrm{T}, 1}^{\tau} < 225$ GeV and $p_{\mathrm{T}, 1}^{\tau}>225$ GeV, respectively. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow of the signal region requirements in the $2\ell$SS/$3\ell+\geq 1\tau$ channel (see Table 5) for $\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}$ signals with $m_{\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}}$=0.9, 1.1, and 1.3 TeV, assuming B=1. Events that satisfy the preselection requirements are considered. In this channel, two signal regions (SR-L and SR-H) are defined based on $p_{\mathrm{T}, 1}^{\tau}$, with SR-L and SR-H requiring $125< p_{\mathrm{T}, 1}^{\tau} < 225$ GeV and $p_{\mathrm{T}, 1}^{\tau}>225$ GeV, respectively. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the BB cross section as a function of B quark mass under the assumption of BR(B->Wt)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the BB cross section as a function of B quark mass for an SU(2) singlet B.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of the T quark in the branching ratio plane of BR(T->Wb) versus BR(T->Ht).

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of the B quark in the branching ratio plane of BR(T->Wb) versus BR(T->Ht).

Observed and expected upper limit on the cross-section for $pp \to H^{++}H^{--}$ for a combination of partial branching ratios of $B(ee) = 30\%$, $B(e \mu ) = 40\%$, and $B( \mu \mu ) = 30\%$.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}e^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}e^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to \mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to \mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Minimum observed and expected lower limit (among all partial branching ratio combinations) on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to \ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to \ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}e^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}e^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to \mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to \mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Minimum observed and expected lower limit (among all partial branching ratio combinations) on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to \ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to \ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 100%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 100%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 90%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 90%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 80%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 80%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 70%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 70%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 60%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 60%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 50%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 50%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 40%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 40%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 30%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 30%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 20%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 20%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 10%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 10%.

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

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

Data minus non-Zjj backgrounds in the EW-enriched fiducial region, statistical errors included

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour (-1$\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.1 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour (+1$\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.1 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour (-1$\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.1 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.1 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ =1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour ($+1\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ =1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour ($-1\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ =1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ =1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving for a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.01 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour ($+1\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving for a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.01 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour ($-1\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving for a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.01 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving for a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.01 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The 90% CL exclusion limit on the $\chi$-proton scattering cross section in a simplifed model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$.

The 90% CL exclusion limit on the $\chi$-nucleon scattering cross section in a simplifed model of dark-matter production involving a vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$.

The observed and expected 95% CL limits on M* for a dimension-7 operator EFT model with a contact interaction of type $\gamma\gamma\chi\chi$ as a function of dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$.

The observed and expected limit at 95% CL on the production cross section of a $Z\gamma$ resonance as a function of its mass.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on signal strength $\mu$, the ratio of the experimental limit to the predicted signal cross section, for a simplified model of dark matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25 and $g_{\chi}$ = 1 as a function of the DM and the mediator particle masses. The bound on $\mu$ only applies for choices of couplings that yield the same kinematic distributions as the benchmark model.

Acceptance, in %, for a simplified model of dark matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$= 0.25 and $g_{\chi}$ = 1 for various $m_{\chi}$ and $m_{\textrm{med}}$ values. It is constant as a function of $m_{\chi}$ for a fixed $m_{\textrm{med}}$ in the region $m_{\textrm{med}}>2m_{\chi}$.

Fiducial reconstruction efficiencies in the three inclusive signal regions for a simplified model of dark matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$= 0.25 and $g_{\chi}$ = 1 for various $m_{\chi}$ and $m_{\textrm{med}}$ values. It is constant as a function of $m_{\chi}$ for a fixed $m_{\textrm{med}}$ in the region $m_{\textrm{med}}>2m_{\chi}$.

Distributions of the invariant mass of the Higgs boson candidates mh=m_jj with two b-tags in the SR for the third MET category that is used as input to the fit.

Distributions of the invariant mass of the Higgs boson candidates mh=m_J with two b-tags in the SR for the fourth MET category that is used as input to the fit.

Distributions of the invariant mass of the Higgs boson candidates mh=m_jj with one b-tag in the SR for the first MET category which is used as input to the fit.

Distributions of the invariant mass of the Higgs boson candidates mh=m_jj with one b-tag in the SR for the second MET category which is used as input to the fit.

Distributions of the invariant mass of the Higgs boson candidates mh=m_jj with one b-tag in the SR for the third MET category which is used as input to the fit.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of WIMP mass m_&chi; vs mediator mass m_med determined using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs, and the other grey line gives the perturbative limit (arXiv 1603.04156). The relic density line (arXiv 1603.04156) illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of WIMP mass m_&chi; vs mediator mass m_med determined using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs, and the other grey line gives the perturbative limit (arXiv 1603.04156). The relic density line (arXiv 1603.04156) illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of WIMP mass m_&chi; vs mediator mass m_med determined using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs, and the other grey line gives the perturbative limit (arXiv 1603.04156). The relic density line (arXiv 1603.04156) illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

The 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section of the ZH process with the prompt Z&rarr; ee and Z&rarr; &mu;&mu; decays and the invisible Higgs boson decays as a function of m_H, obtained from the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. The observed and expected limits are given, as well as the &pm;1&sigma; and &pm;2&sigma; error bands on the expected limits. The signal process is only modelled for the qq initial state, and the theory uncertainties on the signal prediction are not considered.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of m_&chi; vs m_med set using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. The DM model assumes a vector mediator, a fermionic WIMP, and the coupling parameters g_q = 0.25 and g_&chi; = 1. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs. The relic density line [arXiv 1603.04156] illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of m_&chi; vs m_med set using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. The DM model assumes a vector mediator, a fermionic WIMP, and the coupling parameters g_q = 0.25 and g_&chi; = 1. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs. The relic density line [arXiv 1603.04156] illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of m_&chi; vs m_med set using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. The DM model assumes a vector mediator, a fermionic WIMP, and the coupling parameters g_q = 0.25 and g_&chi; = 1. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs. The relic density line [arXiv 1603.04156] illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

DM exclusion limit in the two-dimensional phase space of m_&chi; vs m_med set using the combined ee+&mu;&mu; channel. The DM model assumes a vector mediator, a fermionic WIMP, and the coupling parameters g_q = 0.25 and g_&chi; = 1. Both the observed and expected limits are presented, and the 1&sigma; uncertainty band for the expected limits is also provided. Regions bounded by the limit curves are excluded at the 95% CL. The grey line labelled with "m_med = 2m_&chi;'' indicates the kinematic threshold where the mediator can decay on-shell into WIMPs. The relic density line [arXiv 1603.04156] illustrates the combination of m_&chi; and m_med that would explain the observed DM relic density.

Limits on the WIMP and proton scattering cross section as a function of WIMP mass, obtained for simplified dark matter models with an axial-vector mediator (left) and a vector mediator (right). The solid black line shows the observed limit at the 90% confidence level from this search. The left plot incorporates the latest results from these competitive direct-search experiments, LUX [arXiv 1705.03380], PICO-2L [Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 231302], and PICO-60 [arXiv 1702.07666]. The right plot incorporates the latest results from the following experiments, CRESST-II [Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 25], CDMSlite [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 071301], PandaX-II [Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 121303], LUX [Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 021303], and XENON1T [arXiv 1705.06655].

Limits on the WIMP and proton scattering cross section as a function of WIMP mass, obtained for simplified dark matter models with an axial-vector mediator (left) and a vector mediator (right). The solid black line shows the observed limit at the 90% confidence level from this search. The left plot incorporates the latest results from these competitive direct-search experiments, LUX [arXiv 1705.03380], PICO-2L [Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 231302], and PICO-60 [arXiv 1702.07666]. The right plot incorporates the latest results from the following experiments, CRESST-II [Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 25], CDMSlite [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 071301], PandaX-II [Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 121303], LUX [Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 021303], and XENON1T [arXiv 1705.06655].

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions, with the bin boundaries considered for the interpretation, in SRC of the low-pT edge search. All statistical and systematic uncertainties of the expected background are included in the hatched band. An example signal from the $Z^{*}$ model with m(gluino) = 1000 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 900 GeV is overlaid.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions, with the bin boundaries considered for the interpretation, in SRC-MET of the low-pT edge search. All statistical and systematic uncertainties of the expected background are included in the hatched band. An example signal from the $Z^{*}$ model with m(gluino) = 1000 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 900 GeV is overlaid.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson and the lightest neutralino.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson and the lightest neutralino.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson and the lightest neutralino.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson and the lightest neutralino.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the gluino and next-to-lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the gluino and next-to-lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the squark and next-to-lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the squark and next-to-lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson the lightest neutralino.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and the lightest neutralino.

Acceptance and efficiency in the on-Z bin for SR-medium for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.

Acceptance and efficiency in the on-Z bin for SR-high for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.

Acceptance and efficiency over the full $m_{ll}$ range for SR-low for a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.

Acceptance and efficiency over the full $m_{ll}$ range for SR-medium for a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.

Acceptance and efficiency over the full $m_{ll}$ range for SR-high for a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.

Acceptance and efficiency over the full $m_{ll}$ range for SRC for a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.

Acceptance and efficiency over the full $m_{ll}$ range for SRC-MET for a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.

The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the on-Z $m_{ll}$ windows of SR-medium and SR-high, SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.

The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the on-Z $m_{ll}$ windows of SR-medium and SR-high, SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.

The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the on-Z $m_{ll}$ windows of SR-medium and SR-high, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson the lightest neutralino.

The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the signal regions, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.

The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.

The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the signal regions, in a SUSYscenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson.

The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson.

Cutflow table for three benchmark signal points from the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino, with m(gluino) = 1395 GeV and m(neutralino2) = 505 GeV, m(gluino) = 920 GeV and m(neutralino2) = 230 GeV and m(gluino) = 940 GeV and m(neutralino2) = 660 GeV, in the on-$Z$ $m_{ll}$ bins of SR-medium and SR-high for the electron and muon channels separately. The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow table for a signal point from the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino, with m(gluino) = 1000 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 800 GeV, m(gluino) = 1200 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 500 GeV and m(gluino) = 1400 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 100 GeV, in all m_{ll}$ bins of SR-low, SR-medium and SR-high for the electron and muon channels separately. The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow table for a signal point from the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson, with m(gluino) = 600 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 560 GeV and m(gluino) = 1000 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 960 GeV, in all $m_{ll}$ bins of SRC and SRC-MET for the electron and muon channels separately. The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.

Signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.

Signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson the lightest neutralino, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.

Signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.

Low-$p_{T}$ signal region used to derive the exclusion limit in the compressed region for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.

Signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.

Low-$p_{T}$ signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.

Distributions of E_T^miss in the signal region of the had-had channel before the respective selection requirements, indicated by the vertical line and arrow, are applied. Here, &tau;₁ (&tau;₂) refers to the leading (subleading) &tau;_had. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty in the SM background. The error bars on the black data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data yields. The dashed line shows the expected additional yields from a benchmark signal model. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

<b>Exclusion contour (obs)</b> Expected (solid blue line) and observed (solid red line) exclusion-limit contours at 95% confidence level in the plane of top-squark and tau-slepton mass for the simplified model, obtained from the statistical combination of the lep-had and had-had channels, using full experimental and theory systematic uncertainties except the theoretical uncertainty in the signal cross section. The yellow band shows one-standard-deviation variations around the expected limit contour. The dotted red lines indicate how the observed limit moves when varying the signal cross section up or down by the corresponding uncertainty in the theoretical value. For comparison, the plot also shows the observed exclusion contour from the ATLAS Run-1 analysis as the area shaded in gray and the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments as a green band.

<b>Exclusion contour (exp)</b> Expected (solid blue line) and observed (solid red line) exclusion-limit contours at 95% confidence level in the plane of top-squark and tau-slepton mass for the simplified model, obtained from the statistical combination of the lep-had and had-had channels, using full experimental and theory systematic uncertainties except the theoretical uncertainty in the signal cross section. The yellow band shows one-standard-deviation variations around the expected limit contour. The dotted red lines indicate how the observed limit moves when varying the signal cross section up or down by the corresponding uncertainty in the theoretical value. For comparison, the plot also shows the observed exclusion contour from the ATLAS Run-1 analysis as the area shaded in gray and the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments as a green band.

Expected numbers of events from the SM background processes from the background fit and observed event yield in data for the signal regions in the lep-had and had-had channel, given for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb^-1. The expected yield for the signal model with m(t&#771;₁)=1100 GeV and m(&tau;&#771;₁)=590 GeV is shown for comparison. The uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties and are truncated at zero. The total background from events with a fake tau lepton in the lep-had channel (fake &tau;_had + e /&mu;) is obtained from the fake-factor method.

Normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. The normalization factor for tt&#772; events with fake tau leptons is only relevant for the had-had channel.

Left to right: observed 95% CL upper limits on the visible cross section (&lang; A &epsilon; &sigma; &rang;_obs⁹⁵) and on the number of signal events (S_obs⁹⁵ ). The third column (S_exp⁹⁵) shows the expected 95% CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and &plusmn; 1&sigma; excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the CL_b value, i.e. the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis, and the discovery p-value (p(s = 0)) and the corresponding significance (Z).

Signal acceptance A in percent for the signal region of the lep-had channel. The signal acceptance A is determined from a generator-level implementation of the analysis. It includes the branching ratios for the decays of the tau leptons. The selection efficiency &epsilon; is calculated using reconstructed objects, i.e. including all detector effects, and defined such that the event yields in the signal regions are given by the product A &middot; &epsilon; &middot; N_signal, where N_signal = &sigma; &middot; 36.1 fb^-1 and &sigma; is the theoretical prediction for the production cross section of top-squark pairs with the mass given on the horizontal axis.

Signal acceptance A in percent for the signal region of the had-had channel. The signal acceptance A is determined from a generator-level implementation of the analysis. It includes the branching ratios for the decays of the tau leptons. The selection efficiency &epsilon; is calculated using reconstructed objects, i.e. including all detector effects, and defined such that the event yields in the signal regions are given by the product A &middot; &epsilon; &middot; N_signal, where N_signal = &sigma; &middot; 36.1 fb^-1 and &sigma; is the theoretical prediction for the production cross section of top-squark pairs with the mass given on the horizontal axis.

Reconstruction efficiency &epsilon; in percent for the signal region of the lep-had channel. The signal acceptance A is determined from a generator-level implementation of the analysis. It includes the branching ratios for the decays of the tau leptons. The selection efficiency &epsilon; is calculated using reconstructed objects, i.e. including all detector effects, and defined such that the event yields in the signal regions are given by the product A &middot; &epsilon; &middot; N_signal, where N_signal = &sigma; &middot; 36.1 fb^-1 and &sigma; is the theoretical prediction for the production cross section of top-squark pairs with the mass given on the horizontal axis.

Reconstruction efficiency &epsilon; in percent for the signal region of the had-had channel. The signal acceptance A is determined from a generator-level implementation of the analysis. It includes the branching ratios for the decays of the tau leptons. The selection efficiency &epsilon; is calculated using reconstructed objects, i.e. including all detector effects, and defined such that the event yields in the signal regions are given by the product A &middot; &epsilon; &middot; N_signal, where N_signal = &sigma; &middot; 36.1 fb^-1 and &sigma; is the theoretical prediction for the production cross section of top-squark pairs with the mass given on the horizontal axis.

Upper exclusion limits at 95% confidence level on the observed cross section &sigma;_obs⁹⁵ for the simplified signal model as function of the top-squark mass m(t&#771;₁) and tau-slepton mass m(&tau;&#771;₁) in GeV.

Number of events passing each selection step of SR LH (lep-had channel) before (raw number) and after applying event-based weights (weighted) for signal point m(t&#771;₁) = 1100 GeV, m(&tau;&#771;₁) = 590 GeV. The preselection step here does not include the requirements on the tau p_T and the number of bjets.

Number of events passing each selection step of SR HH (had-had channel) before (raw number) and after applying event-based weights (weighted) for signal point m(t&#771;₁) = 1100 GeV, m(&tau;&#771;₁) = 590 GeV. The preselection step here does not include the requirements on the tau p_T and the number of bjets. Here, &tau;₁ (&tau;₂) refers to the leading (subleading) &tau;_had.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the top quark pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

$\textbf{Distribution 1 } -$ Kinematic distribution of $m_{\rm top}^{\rm reclustered}$ in tN_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 2 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bC2x_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 2 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bC2x_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 2 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bC2x_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 2 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bC2x_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 3 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in bC2x_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 3 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in bC2x_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 3 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in bC2x_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 3 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in bC2x_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 4 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in bCbv. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 4 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in bCbv. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 4 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in bCbv. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 4 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in bCbv. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 5 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in DM_low. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 5 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in DM_low. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 5 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in DM_low. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 5 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in DM_low. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 6 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in DM_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 6 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in DM_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 6 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in DM_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 6 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in DM_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 7 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_low region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 7 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_low region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 7 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_low region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 7 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_low region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 8 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_med region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 8 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_med region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 8 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_med region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 8 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_med region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 9 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_high region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 9 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_high region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 9 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_high region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 9 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_high region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.

$\textbf{Distribution 10 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in tN_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 10 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in tN_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 10 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in tN_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 10 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in tN_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 11 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bWN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 11 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bWN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 11 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bWN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 11 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bWN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 12 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bffN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 12 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bffN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 12 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bffN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 12 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bffN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 13 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 13 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 13 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 13 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 14 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 14 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 14 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 14 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 15 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 15 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 15 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Distribution 15 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Selected SR 1 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{Selected SR 1 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{Selected SR 1 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{Selected SR 1 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.

$\textbf{Selected SR 2 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{Selected SR 2 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{Selected SR 2 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{Selected SR 2 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Selected SR 3 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Selected SR 3 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Selected SR 3 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Selected SR 3 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Selected SR 4 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Selected SR 4 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Selected SR 4 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Selected SR 4 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 6 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 6 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 6 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 6 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 7 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 7 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 7 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 7 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 8 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 8 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 8 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 8 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 10 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 10 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 10 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 10 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 11 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 11 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 11 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 11 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 12 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 12 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 12 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Selected SR 12 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Selected SR 13 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Selected SR 13 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Selected SR 13 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Selected SR 13 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.<br><b>Note:</b> As no observed exclusion is found for this model, the contour is empty.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.<br><b>Note:</b> As no observed exclusion is found for this model, the contour is empty.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.<br><b>Note:</b> As no observed exclusion is found for this model, the contour is empty.

$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.<br><b>Note:</b> As no observed exclusion is found for this model, the contour is empty.

$\textbf{Selected SR 14 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.

$\textbf{Selected SR 14 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.

$\textbf{Selected SR 14 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.

$\textbf{Selected SR 14 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 1 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 1 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 1 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 1 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 2 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 2 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 2 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 2 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 3 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 3 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 3 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 3 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 4 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 4 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 4 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 4 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 1 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 1 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 1 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 1 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 2 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 2 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 2 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 2 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 3 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu < 0

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 3 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu < 0

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 3 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu < 0

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 3 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu < 0

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 4 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu > 0

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 4 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu > 0

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 4 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu > 0

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 4 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu > 0

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 5 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 5 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 5 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 5 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 6 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 6 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 6 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 6 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 7 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 7 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 7 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 7 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 8 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 8 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 8 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 8 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 9 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 9 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 9 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 9 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 10 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 10 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 10 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 10 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 11 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the simplified model with m(STOP) - m(CHARGINO) = 10 GeV.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 11 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the simplified model with m(STOP) - m(CHARGINO) = 10 GeV.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 11 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the simplified model with m(STOP) - m(CHARGINO) = 10 GeV.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 11 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the simplified model with m(STOP) - m(CHARGINO) = 10 GeV.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 12 } -$ Observed 95% upper cross-section limit in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 12 } -$ Observed 95% upper cross-section limit in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 12 } -$ Observed 95% upper cross-section limit in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 12 } -$ Observed 95% upper cross-section limit in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 13 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 13 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 13 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 13 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with left-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 14 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 14 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 14 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{X-section U.L. 14 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with right-handed stop squarks.

$\textbf{Cutflow 1 } -$ Cutflow for tN_med for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 1 } -$ Cutflow for tN_med for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 1 } -$ Cutflow for tN_med for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 1 } -$ Cutflow for tN_med for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 2 } -$ Cutflow for tN_high for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (1000, 1) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 2 } -$ Cutflow for tN_high for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (1000, 1) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 2 } -$ Cutflow for tN_high for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (1000, 1) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 2 } -$ Cutflow for tN_high for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (1000, 1) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 3 } -$ Cutflow for bWN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 230) GeV in bWN. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 3 } -$ Cutflow for bWN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 230) GeV in bWN. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 3 } -$ Cutflow for bWN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 230) GeV in bWN. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 3 } -$ Cutflow for bWN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 230) GeV in bWN. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 4 } -$ Cutflow for bffN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 4 } -$ Cutflow for bffN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 4 } -$ Cutflow for bffN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 4 } -$ Cutflow for bffN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 5 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_diag for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (737, 500, 250) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 5 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_diag for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (737, 500, 250) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 5 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_diag for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (737, 500, 250) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 5 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_diag for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (737, 500, 250) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 6 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_med for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (842, 300, 150) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 6 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_med for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (842, 300, 150) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 6 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_med for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (842, 300, 150) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 6 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_med for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (842, 300, 150) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 7 } -$ Cutflow for the simplified signal model with $\Delta m( \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = 10 GeV, considering $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (700, 690, 1). The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 7 } -$ Cutflow for the simplified signal model with $\Delta m( \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = 10 GeV, considering $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (700, 690, 1). The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 7 } -$ Cutflow for the simplified signal model with $\Delta m( \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = 10 GeV, considering $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (700, 690, 1). The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 7 } -$ Cutflow for the simplified signal model with $\Delta m( \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = 10 GeV, considering $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (700, 690, 1). The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 8 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_diag for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (400, 355, 350) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 8 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_diag for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (400, 355, 350) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 8 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_diag for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (400, 355, 350) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 8 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_diag for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (400, 355, 350) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 9 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_med for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 205, 200) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 9 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_med for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 205, 200) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 9 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_med for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 205, 200) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 9 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_med for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 205, 200) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 10 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_high for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (800, 155, 150) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 10 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_high for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (800, 155, 150) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 10 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_high for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (800, 155, 150) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 10 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_high for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (800, 155, 150) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Cutflow 11 } -$ Cutflow for DM_high for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (300, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 11 } -$ Cutflow for DM_high for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (300, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 11 } -$ Cutflow for DM_high for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (300, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 11 } -$ Cutflow for DM_high for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (300, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 12 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 12 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 12 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 12 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 13 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low_loose for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 13 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low_loose for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 13 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low_loose for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Cutflow 13 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low_loose for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.

$\textbf{Acceptance 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.

$\textbf{Acceptance 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.

$\textbf{Acceptance 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.

$\textbf{Acceptance 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.

$\textbf{Efficiency 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.

$\textbf{Efficiency 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.

$\textbf{Efficiency 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.

$\textbf{Efficiency 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.

$\textbf{Acceptance 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.

$\textbf{Acceptance 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.

$\textbf{Acceptance 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.

$\textbf{Acceptance 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.

$\textbf{Efficiency 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.

$\textbf{Efficiency 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.

$\textbf{Efficiency 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.

$\textbf{Efficiency 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.

$\textbf{Acceptance 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Acceptance 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

$\textbf{Efficiency 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.

The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.

The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The N_s calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The N_s values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.

The N_s values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

The N_s values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.

Reconstructed mtb distribution in data and for the background after the fit to the data in the signal region SR2. The statistical uncertainty on data points is calculated using assymetric Poisson confidence intervals.

Reconstructed mtb distribution in data and for the background after the fit to the data in the signal region SR3. The statistical uncertainty on data points is calculated using assymetric Poisson confidence intervals.

Reconstructed mtb distribution in data and for the background after the fit to the data in the validation region VR. The statistical uncertainty on data points is calculated using assymetric Poisson confidence intervals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA350 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA450 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA450 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA550 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA550 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRB signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRB signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRC signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRC signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L- best expected signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L- best expected signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA300-2j signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA300-2j signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA450 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA450 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA600 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA600 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA750 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA750 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRB signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRB signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L- best expected signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L- best expected signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA350 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA350 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA450 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA450 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA550 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA550 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRB signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRB signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRC signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRC signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L- best expected signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L- best expected signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA300-2j signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA300-2j signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA450 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA450 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA600 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA600 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA750 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA750 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRB signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRB signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L- best expected signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L- best expected signal region.

b1L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.

b1L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.

b0L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.

b0L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.

combined signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.

combined signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.

b0L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino.

b0L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA550 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.

Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA550 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.