SUS-17-003

$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/SUS-17-003/trunk/SUS-17-003.tex$
$Id:SUS-17-003.tex4745432018-09-1020:09:32Zvdutta$

SUS-17-003

# Search for supersymmetry in events with a lepton pair and missing transverse
momentum in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

###### Abstract

A search for the electroweak production of supersymmetric particles in proton-
proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $13\TeV$ is presented in final
states with a lepton pair. Both hadronic and leptonic decay modes are
considered for the leptons. Scenarios involving the direct pair production of
sleptons, or their indirect production via the decays of charginos and
neutralinos, are investigated. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity
of $35.9\fbinv$ collected with the CMS detector in 2016. The observed number
of events is consistent with the standard model background expectation. The
results are interpreted as upper limits on the cross section for slepton pair
production in different scenarios. The strongest limits are observed in the
scenario of a purely left-handed low mass slepton decaying to a nearly
massless neutralino. Exclusion limits are also set in the context of
simplified models of chargino-neutralino and chargino pair production with
decays to leptons, and range up to 710 and 630, respectively.

##  0.1 Introduction

Supersymmetry (SUSY) [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] is an attractive extension of
the standard model (SM) of particle physics. It potentially provides solutions
to some of the shortcomings affecting the SM, such as the need for fine tuning
[9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14] to explain the observed value of the Higgs boson mass
[15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20], and the absence of a dark matter (DM) candidate.
Supersymmetric models are characterized by the presence of a superpartner for
every SM particle with the same quantum numbers except that its spin differs
from that of its SM counterpart by half a unit. The cancellation of quadratic
divergences in quantum corrections to the Higgs boson mass from SM particles
and their superpartners could resolve the fine-tuning problem. In SUSY models
with $R$-parity conservation [21], the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP)
is stable [22, 23] and could be a DM candidate [24]. The superpartners of the
electroweak gauge and Higgs bosons, namely the bino, winos, and Higgsinos, mix
to form neutral and charged mass eigenstates, referred to as the neutralinos
($\chiz_{\mathrm{i}}$) and charginos ($\chipm_{\mathrm{i}}$), respectively. In
this paper we assume , the lightest neutralino, to be the LSP.

The analysis reported in this paper investigates the production of the
hypothetical slepton (), the superpartner of the lepton. Supersymmetric
scenarios in which the is light lead to the possibility of lepton rich final
states [25, 26]. Coannihilation scenarios involving a light that has a small
mass splitting with an LSP that is almost purely bino lead to a DM relic
density consistent with cosmological observations [27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32],
making the search for new physics in these final states particularly
interesting. In this analysis, we examine simplified SUSY models [33, 34, 35,
36] in which the can be produced either directly, through pair production, or
indirectly, in the decay chains of charginos and neutralinos. In all cases, we
assume that the decays to a lepton and . The most sensitive searches for
direct pair production to date were performed at the CERN LEP collider [37,
38, 39, 40, 41]. At the CERN LHC, the ATLAS [42, 43] and CMS [44, 45]
Collaborations have both performed searches for direct and indirect production
with 8LHC data. The ATLAS Collaboration has also recently reported the results
of a search for SUSY in final states with leptons, probing indirect production
in models of chargino-neutralino and chargino pair production, using data
collected at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ [46].

The cross section for direct pair production depends strongly on the chirality
of the SM partner [47], while the experimental acceptance also changes
considerably due to differences in the polarization of the leptons. We use the
terms left- or right-handed to refer to a that is the superpartner of a left-
or right-handed chiral state, respectively. In the case of a purely right-
handed , the decay products of hadronically decaying leptons originating from
decays have larger visible transverse momentum () than in the purely left-
handed scenario, while the reverse is true for leptonically decaying leptons.
Three different scenarios of direct pair production are considered in this
paper: (i) a purely left-handed ($\PSGt_{\mathrm{L}}$), (ii) a purely right-
handed ($\PSGt_{\mathrm{R}}$), and (iii) maximal mixing between the right- and
left-handed eigenstates. We also consider simplified models of mass-degenerate
chargino-neutralino () and chargino pair ($\PSGc^{\mp}_{1}$) production. We
assume that (the second-lightest neutralino mass eigenstate) decays through
the chain $\PSGczDt\to\PGt\PSGt\to\PGt\PGt\PSGczDo$, and that (the lightest
chargino) decays as
$\PSGcpmDo\to\PSGt\PGnGt/\widetilde{\nu}_{\tau}\PGt\to\PGt\PGnGt\PSGczDo$,
with equal branching fractions assumed for each of the two possible decay
chains. For these indirect production mechanisms, we assume the to be in the
maximally mixed state, and the degenerate and $\widetilde{\nu}_{\tau}$ masses
to be halfway between the mass of the produced particles
($\PSGcpmDo/\PSGczDt$) and the mass. Diagrams illustrating these simplified
models of direct and indirect production are shown in Fig. 1.

The results reported in this paper are based on data collected with the CMS
detector at the LHC during 2016 in proton-proton () collisions at a center-of-
mass energy of 13, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9. We study
events with two leptons in the final state, taking into account both hadronic
and leptonic decay modes of the lepton. The following reconstructed visible
final states are considered: $\Pe\mu$, $\Pe\tauh$, $\mu\tauh$, and
$\tauh\tauh$, where denotes a hadronically decaying lepton. For the purposes
of this paper, we will occasionally refer to the $\tauh\tauh$ final state as
the all-hadronic final state, and the $\Pe\mu$, $\Pe\tauh$, and $\mu\tauh$
final states collectively as the leptonic final states. In most cases, we
require the presence of significant missing transverse momentum, which can
arise from the presence of stable neutralinos produced at the end of the SUSY
particle decay cascades, as well as from the neutrinos produced in lepton
decays.

Figure 1:  Diagrams for the simplified models studied in this paper: direct
pair production followed by each decaying to a lepton and (left), and
chargino-neutralino (middle) and chargino pair (right) production with
subsequent decays leading to leptons in the final state.

The structure of this paper is as follows. A brief description of the CMS
detector is presented in Section 0.2, followed by a discussion of the event
reconstruction and simulation in Section 0.3. We describe the event selection
for the search in Section 0.4, the background estimation strategy in Section
0.5, and the systematic uncertainties affecting the analysis in Section 0.6.
Finally, the results of the search and their statistical interpretation are
presented in Section 0.7, followed by a summary in Section 0.8.

##  0.2 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron
calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward
calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity ($\eta$) coverage provided by the
barrel and endcap detectors. Muons are detected in gas-ionization chambers
embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. Events of
interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [48]. The first level,
composed of custom hardware processors, uses information from the calorimeters
and muon detectors to select events at a rate of around 100kHz within a time
interval of less than 4. The second level, known as the high-level trigger,
consists of a farm of processors running a version of the full event
reconstruction software optimized for fast processing, and reduces the event
rate to around 1kHz before data storage. A more detailed description of the
CMS detector, together with a definition of the coordinate system used and the
relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [49].

##  0.3 Event reconstruction and simulated samples

Event reconstruction uses a particle-flow (PF) algorithm [50], combining
information from the tracker, calorimeter, and muon systems to identify
charged and neutral hadrons, photons, electrons, and muons in an event. The
missing transverse momentum, , is computed as the negative vector sum of the
of all PF candidates reconstructed in an event, and its magnitude is an
important discriminator between signal and SM background. Events selected for
the search are required to pass filters [51] designed to remove detector- and
beam-related noise and must have at least one reconstructed vertex. Usually
more than one such vertex is reconstructed, due to pileup, , multiple $\Pp\Pp$
collisions within the same or neighboring bunch crossings. The reconstructed
vertex with the largest value of summed physics-object $\pt^{2}$ is selected
to be the primary $\Pp\Pp$ interaction vertex. The physics objects are the
jets, clustered using a jet finding algorithm [52, 53] with the tracks
assigned to the vertex as inputs, and the associated .

Charged particles that originate from the primary vertex, photons, and neutral
hadrons are clustered into jets using the anti-algorithm [52] with a distance
parameter of 0.4, as implemented in the FastJet package [53]. The jet energy
is corrected to account for the contribution of additional pileup interactions
in an event and to compensate for variations in detector response [53, 54].
Jets considered in the searches are required to have their axes within the
tracker volume, within the range $\abs{\eta}<2.4$. We also require them to
have $\pt>20$. Jets are required to be separated from electron, muon, or
candidates that are selected for the analysis by $\Delta
R\equiv\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}>0.4$ in order to
avoid double counting of objects.

Jets originating from the hadronization of quarks are identified, or “tagged”,
with the combined secondary vertex (CSV) algorithm [55, 56] using two
different working points, referred to as “loose” and “medium”. The tagging
efficiency for jets originating from quarks is measured in simulation to be
about 81 (63)% for the loose (medium) working point, while the
misidentification rates for jets from charm quarks, and from light quarks or
gluons, are about 37 and 9% (12 and 1%), respectively.

Electron candidates are reconstructed by first matching clusters of energy
deposited in the ECAL to reconstructed tracks. Selection criteria based on the
distribution of the shower shape, track–cluster matching, and consistency
between the cluster energy and track momentum are then used in the
identification of electron candidates [57]. Muon candidates are reconstructed
by requiring consistent measurement patterns in the tracker and muon systems
[58]. Electron and muon candidates are required to be consistent with
originating from the primary vertex by imposing restrictions on the magnitude
of the impact parameters of their tracks with respect to the primary vertex in
the transverse plane ($d_{xy}$), and on the longitudinal displacement
($d_{z}$) of those impact points. To ensure that the electron or muon
candidate is isolated from any jet activity, the relative isolation quantity
($I_{\text{rel}}$), defined as the ratio of the scalar sum of the particles in
an $\eta$–$\phi$ cone around the candidate to the candidate , is required to
be below a threshold appropriate for the selection under consideration. An
area-based estimate [54] of the pileup energy deposition in the cone is used
to correct $I_{\text{rel}}$ for contributions from particles originating from
pileup interactions.

The candidates are reconstructed using the CMS hadron-plus-strips algorithm
[59, 60]. The constituents of the reconstructed jets are used to identify
individual lepton decay modes with one charged hadron and up to two neutral
pions, or three charged hadrons. The presence of extra particles within the
jet, not compatible with the reconstructed decay mode, is used as a criterion
to discriminate decays from other jets. A multivariate discriminant [61],
which contains isolation as well as lifetime information, is used to suppress
the rate for quark and gluon jets to be misidentified as candidates. The
working point used for the analysis in the $\Pe\tauh$ and $\mu\tauh$ final
states, referred to as the “tight” working point, typically has an efficiency
of around 50% for genuine , with a misidentification rate of approximately
0.03% for light-quark or gluon jets. A more stringent (“very tight”) working
point is used for the analysis in the $\tauh\tauh$ final state in order to
suppress the background from SM events comprised uniquely of jets produced
through the strong interaction, referred to as quantum chromodynamics (QCD)
multijet events. The very tight working point corresponds to typical
efficiencies of around 40% for genuine , and a misidentification rate of
approximately 0.01% for light-quark or gluon jets. We also employ a relaxed
(“loose”) working point in the extrapolation procedures used to estimate the
contributions of events to the background in which light-quark or gluon jets
are misidentified as . The loose working point corresponds to an efficiency of
$\approx$65% for genuine , and a misidentification rate of $\approx$0.07%.
Electrons and muons misidentified as are suppressed using dedicated criteria
based on the consistency between the measurements in the tracker,
calorimeters, and muon detectors [60, 61].

Significant contributions to the SM background for this search originate from
Drell-Yan+jets (DY+jets), $\PW$+jets, , and diboson processes, as well as from
QCD multijet events. Smaller contributions arise from rare SM processes such
as triboson and Higgs boson production, single top quark production, and top
quark pair production in association with vector bosons. We rely on a
combination of data control samples and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations to
estimate the contributions of each background source. MC simulations are also
used to model the signal processes.

The 2.3.3 [62] event generator is used at leading order (LO) precision to
produce simulated samples of the $\PW$+jets and DY+jets processes, based on
the NNPDF3.0LO [63] set of parton distribution functions (PDFs). Top quark
pair production, diboson and triboson production, and rare SM processes like
single top production or top quark pair production with associated bosons, are
generated at next-to-leading order (NLO) precision with and v2.0 [64, 65, 66,
67], using the NNPDF3.0NLO [63] set of PDFs. Showering and hadronization are
carried out by the 8.205 package [68], while a detailed simulation of the CMS
detector is based on the [69] package. Finally, renormalization and
factorization scale and PDF uncertainties have been derived with the use of
the SysCalc package [70].

Signal models of direct pair production are generated with at LO precision up
to the production of leptons, which are then decayed with 8.212. For the
models of chargino-neutralino pair production that are also studied, 8.212 is
used to describe the decays of the parent charginos and neutralinos produced
by at LO precision. The NNPDF3.0LO set of PDFs is used in the generation of
all signal models. The CMS fast simulation package [71] is used to simulate
the CMS detector for the signal samples.

Event reconstruction in simulated samples is performed in a similar manner as
for data. A nominal distribution of pileup interactions is used when producing
the simulated samples. The samples are then reweighted to match the pileup
profile observed in the collected data. The signal production cross sections
are calculated at NLO with next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) soft-gluon
resummation calculations [47, 72, 73]. The most precise cross section
calculations that are available are used to normalize the SM simulated
samples, corresponding most often to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO)
accuracy.

##  0.4 Event selection

The data used for this search are selected with various triggers that require
the presence of isolated electrons, muons, or candidates. In the case of the
$\Pe\tauh$ final state, the trigger used relies on the presence of an isolated
electron with $\pt>25\GeV$ satisfying stringent identification criteria, while
for the $\mu\tauh$ final state, the trigger is based on the presence of an
isolated muon with $\pt>24\GeV$. A combination of triggers is used for the
events selected in the $\Pe\mu$ final state, requiring the presence of an
electron and a muon. These triggers require the leading lepton to have greater
than 23and the subleading lepton to have greater than 8 or 12for an electron
or muon, respectively. Data in the $\tauh\tauh$ final state are selected with
a trigger requiring the presence of two candidates, each with $\pt>35\GeV$.
Trigger efficiencies are measured in data and simulation. We apply scale
factors accounting for any discrepancies, parameterized in the and $\eta$ of
the reconstructed electrons, muons, and candidates, to the simulation. The
efficiencies measured in data are applied directly as correction factors to
simulated signal samples, which are produced using the fast simulation package
and for which the trigger simulation is not available. The trigger
efficiencies range from 60 to 95%, depending on the final state and the and
$\eta$ range under consideration.

Subsequent to the trigger criteria, the event selection for each final state
requires the presence of exactly two reconstructed leptons with opposite
charges, corresponding to the $\Pe\mu$, $\Pe\tauh$, $\mu\tauh$, or
$\tauh\tauh$ final states. The various lepton selection requirements
implemented in the analysis are summarized in Table 0.4. The and $\abs{\eta}$
thresholds implemented when selecting these objects are dictated by the
corresponding trigger thresholds described above. We require all selected
leptons to be isolated. In the case of electron and muon candidates, the
isolation requirement is enforced by placing an upper bound on the relative
isolation quantity, $I_{\text{rel}}$. For candidates, we use a multivariate
discriminant. In order to ensure consistency with the primary vertex, upper
bounds are placed on the absolute values of the electron and muon $d_{xy}$ and
$d_{z}$. We avoid overlaps between the two reconstructed leptons in the mixed
final states ($\Pe\mu$, $\Pe\tauh$, and $\mu\tauh$) by requiring them to have
a minimum separation in $\Delta R$ of at least 0.3. In order to ensure
orthogonality between the different final states and suppress background, we
reject events with additional electrons or muons beyond the two selected
leptons that satisfy slightly less stringent selection criteria. These
criteria are summarized in Table 0.4.

Summary of lepton selection requirements for the analysis. Entries with a
second value in parentheses refer to the lepton with the higher (lower) .
Selection requirement $\Pe\mu$ $\Pe\tauh$ $\mu\tauh$ $\tauh\tauh$ Electron []
${>}24\,(13)$ ${>}26$ — — Electron $\abs{\eta}$ ${<}2.5$ ${<}2.1$ — — Electron
$\abs{d_{xy}}$ [cm] ${<}0.045$ ${<}0.045$ — — Electron $\abs{d_{z}}$ [cm]
${<}0.2$ ${<}0.2$ — — Electron $I_{\text{rel}}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ — — Muon []
${>}24\,(10)$ — ${>}25$ — Muon $\abs{\eta}$ ${<}2.4$ — ${<}2.4$ — Muon
$\abs{d_{xy}}$ [cm] ${<}0.045$ — ${<}0.045$ — Muon $\abs{d_{z}}$ [cm] ${<}0.2$
— ${<}0.2$ — Muon $I_{\text{rel}}$ ${<}0.15$ — ${<}0.15$ — [] — ${>}20$
${>}20$ ${>}40$ $\tauh\abs{\eta}$ — ${<}2.3$ ${<}2.3$ ${<}2.1$ isolation
working point — Tight Tight Very tight

Summary of requirements for identifying additional electrons and muons.
Selection requirement $\Pe\mu$ $\Pe\tauh$ $\mu\tauh$ $\tauh\tauh$ Electron []
${>}15$ ${>}15$ ${>}10$ ${>}20$ Electron $\abs{\eta}$ ${<}2.5$ ${<}2.5$
${<}2.5$ ${<}2.5$ Electron $\abs{d_{xy}}$ [cm] ${<}0.045$ ${<}0.045$
${<}0.045$ ${<}0.1$ Electron $\abs{d_{z}}$ [cm] ${<}0.2$ ${<}0.2$ ${<}0.2$
${<}0.2$ Electron $I_{\text{rel}}$ ${<}0.3$ ${<}0.3$ ${<}0.3$ ${<}0.175$ Muon
[] ${>}15$ ${>}10$ ${>}15$ ${>}20$ Muon $\abs{\eta}$ ${<}2.4$ ${<}2.4$
${<}2.4$ ${<}2.4$ Muon $\abs{d_{xy}}$ [cm] ${<}0.045$ ${<}0.045$ ${<}0.045$
${<}0.045$ Muon $\abs{d_{z}}$ [cm] ${<}0.2$ ${<}0.2$ ${<}0.2$ ${<}0.2$ Muon
$I_{\text{rel}}$ ${<}0.3$ ${<}0.3$ ${<}0.3$ ${<}0.25$

A subsequent set of selection criteria is imposed for each final state to
further suppress background and enhance the search sensitivity. Differences in
the background compositions between the different final states play a role in
the determination of the corresponding selection criteria which, together with
the selection requirements described above, define the “baseline selection”.

In all final states, we require $\abs{\Delta\phi(\ell_{1},\ell_{2})}>1.5$,
with additional requirements of $\Delta R(\ell_{1},\ell_{2})<3.5$ and
$\abs{\Delta\eta(\ell_{1},\ell_{2})}<2$ being applied for the leptonic final
states to suppress the QCD multijet background. Here $\ell_{1}$ and $\ell_{2}$
represent the leading and trailing reconstructed electrons, muons, or
candidates, respectively. In order to suppress backgrounds with top quarks, we
veto events containing any -tagged jet with $\pt>30\GeV$ identified with the
loose CSV working point in the $\tauh\tauh$ final state. In the leptonic final
states, these backgrounds are reduced by vetoing any event that contains
either more than one jet with $\pt>20\GeV$, or any such jet that is tagged
using the medium CSV working point. One-jet events in these final states are
required to have a separation in $\abs{\Delta\eta}$ of less than 3 between the
jet and the reconstructed leptons and, in the case of the $\Pe\tauh$ and
$\mu\tauh$ final states, a separation in $\Delta R$ of less than 4 between the
jet and the . Background events from low-mass resonances are removed in these
final states by requiring the invariant mass of the two leptons,
$m(\ell_{1},\ell_{2})$, to exceed 50. In the $\Pe\mu$ final state,
$m(\ell_{1},\ell_{2})$ is required to lie in the window 90–250in order to
suppress $\PZ$+jets events with $\PZ\to\PGt\PGt$, while the electron and muon
are required to be less than 200in order to suppress and events, since the
signal processes targeted are not expected to produce leptons with higher .

In order to further improve discrimination against the SM background, we take
advantage of the expected presence of two in the final state for signal
events, which would lead to additional . While background processes such as
$\PW$+jets with $\PW\to\ell\nu$ can also produce genuine , the correlations
between and the reconstructed leptons are expected to be different between
signal and background processes, and these differences can be exploited. In
particular, mass observables that can be calculated from the reconstructed
leptons and the provide strong discriminants between signal and background.
For a mother particle decaying to a visible and an invisible particle, the
transverse mass ($m_{\mathrm{T}}$), calculated using only the of the decay
products, should have a kinematic endpoint at the mass of the mother particle.
Assuming that the corresponds to the of the invisible particle, we calculate
the $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable for the visible particle q and the invisible
particle as follows:

$m_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{q},\ptvecmiss)\equiv\sqrt{2p_{\text{T,q}}\ptmiss[1-\cos\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T,q}},\ptvecmiss)]}.$
(1)

By requiring $20<m_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell,\ptvecmiss)<60\GeV$ or
$m_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell,\ptvecmiss)>120\GeV$ where $\ell$ here represents the
electron (muon) in the $\Pe\tauh$ ($\mu\tauh$) final state, the $\PW$+jets
background is significantly reduced. To further suppress the SM background in
the leptonic final states, we require the sum of the transverse masses,
$\Sigma m_{\mathrm{T}}$, to be at least 50. The $\Sigma m_{\mathrm{T}}$ is
defined as the scalar sum of $m_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell_{1},\ptvecmiss)$ and
$m_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell_{2},\ptvecmiss)$.

Summary of baseline selection requirements in each final state.  Selection
requirement $\Pe\mu$ $\Pe\tauh$ $\mu\tauh$ $\tauh\tauh$
$\abs{\Delta\phi(\ell_{1},\ell_{2})}$ ${>}1.5$ ${>}1.5$ ${>}1.5$ ${>}1.5$
$\abs{\Delta\eta(\ell_{1},\ell_{2})}$ ${<}2$ ${<}2$ ${<}2$ — $\Delta
R(\ell_{1},\ell_{2})$ ${<}3.5$ ${<}3.5$ ${<}3.5$ — -tagged jet veto
$\pt>20\GeV$, $\pt>20\GeV$, $\pt>20\GeV$, $\pt>30\GeV$, medium CSV medium CSV
medium CSV loose CSV Additional jet veto ${>}1$ jet, $\pt>20\GeV$ ${>}1$ jet,
$\pt>20\GeV$ ${>}1$ jet, $\pt>20\GeV$ —
$\abs{\Delta\eta(\text{jet},\ell_{\mathrm{i}})}$ (1–jet events) ${<}3$ ${<}3$
${<}3$ — $\Delta R(\text{jet},\tauh)$ (1–jet events) — ${<}4$ ${<}4$ —
$m(\ell_{1},\ell_{2})$ [] 90–250 ${>}50$ ${>}50$ — $\Pe/\mu$ upper bound []
${<}200$ — — — $m_{\mathrm{T}}(\Pe/\mu,\ptvecmiss)$ [] — 20–60 20–60 — or
${>}120$ or ${>}120$ $\Sigma m_{\mathrm{T}}$ [] — ${>}50$ ${>}50$ —

The baseline selection criteria described above are summarized in Table 0.4.
We apply these criteria to obtain an optimized sample of events in each final
state. These events are then further subdivided using discriminating kinematic
variables into exclusive search regions (SRs) to improve the sensitivity of
the search to a range of sparticle masses. One of these discriminating
variables is the “stransverse mass” $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ [74, 75]. This kinematic
mass variable is a generalization of the variable $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ for
situations with multiple invisible particles. It serves as an estimator of the
mass of pair-produced particles in situations in which both particles decay to
a final state containing the same invisible particle. For direct pair
production, with both decaying to a lepton and a , $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ should be
correlated with the mass. Large values of $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ can therefore be
used to discriminate between models with large masses and the SM background.
This variable is again calculated using the of the different particles:

$m_{\mathrm{T2}}=\min_{\ptvec^{\,\mathrm{X}(1)}+\ptvec^{\,\mathrm{X}(2)}=\ptvecmiss}\left[\max\left(m_{\mathrm{T}}^{(1)},m_{\mathrm{T}}^{(2)}\right)\right],$
(2)

where $\ptvec^{\,\mathrm{X}(i)}$ (with $i$=1,2) are the unknown transverse
momenta of the two undetected particles and $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{(i)}$ are the
transverse masses obtained by either pairing of the two hypothetical invisible
particles with the two leptons. The minimization is done over the possible
momenta of the invisible particles, which should add up to the in the event.

Another variable that is used to distinguish signal from background,
$D_{\zeta}$, is defined as:

$D_{\zeta}=P_{\zeta,\text{miss}}-0.85P_{\zeta,\text{vis}}\,,$ (3)

where $P_{\zeta,\text{miss}}=\ptvecmiss\cdot\vec{\zeta}$ and
$P_{\zeta,\text{vis}}=(\ptvec^{\,\ell_{1}}+\ptvec^{\,\ell_{2}})\cdot\vec{\zeta}$,
with $\vec{\zeta}$ being the bisector between the directions of the two
leptons. The $D_{\zeta}$ variable helps to discriminate events in which
originates from the decay of two leptons from other processes [76, 77].
Different background processes are characterized by different ranges of
$D_{\zeta}$. For instance, the DY+jets background is largely expected to have
positive $D_{\zeta}$ values, while $\PW$+jets and events may have negative
values.

The more restrictive trigger requirements in the $\tauh\tauh$ final state
significantly reduce the signal acceptance, and the very low cross sections of
the targeted $\PSGt\PSGt$ signal models result in very small expected signal
event yields after the baseline selection. Events surviving the baseline
selection in this final state are therefore categorized into only three SRs.
These three SRs are exclusive and are optimized for sensitivity to different
mass ranges. For higher values of the mass, a requirement of large
$m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ significantly improves the discrimination of signal from
background. We therefore define a search region, designated SR1, by selecting
events with $m_{\mathrm{T2}}>90\GeV$. For lower masses, $\Sigma
m_{\mathrm{T}}$ is found to be a more powerful discriminant than
$m_{\mathrm{T2}}$. Two additional SRs, designated SR2 and SR3, are therefore
defined by selecting events with moderate $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$
($40<m_{\mathrm{T2}}<90\GeV$), and further subdividing them into high and
moderate $\Sigma m_{\mathrm{T}}$ ranges: $>$350and 300–350, respectively. For
these two SRs, we place a further requirement of $\ptmiss>50\GeV$ to
sufficiently suppress the QCD multijet background.

In the leptonic final states, events satisfying the baseline selection
criteria are categorized into SRs based on a series of thresholds applied to
the values of the discriminating observables , $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$, and
$D_{\zeta}$. The SR binning is defined to be slightly different for events in
the 0- and 1-jet categories and is chosen such that there are small variations
in the relative background contributions in the different bins. This allows us
to obtain stronger constraints on the background predictions in the final
result, obtained from a simultaneous maximum likelihood fit to the data in all
SRs. Tables 0.4 to 0.4 list the criteria used to define the SRs in the 0- and
1-jet categories, respectively. While the same binning is chosen for the
$\Pe\tauh$ and $\mu\tauh$ final states, the SR bins chosen in the $\Pe\mu$
final state are slightly different because of the different background
composition.

Definition of SRs in the 0-jet category for the $\Pe\tauh$ and $\mu\tauh$
final states.  Bin name [] $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ [] $D_{\zeta}$ []
$\mathrm{0j}-{1}$ ${<}40$ ${<}40$ $<-100$ $\mathrm{0j}-{2}$ ${>}40$ $>-500$
$\mathrm{0j}-{3}$ [40,80] ${<}40$ $<-100$ $\mathrm{0j}-{4}$ ${>}50$
$\mathrm{0j}-{5}$ [40,80] $<-100$ $\mathrm{0j}-{6}$ $>-100$ $\mathrm{0j}-{7}$
${>}80$ $>-500$ $\mathrm{0j}-{8}$ [80,120] ${<}40$ $<-100$ $\mathrm{0j}-{9}$
$>-100$ $\mathrm{0j}-{10}$ [40,80] $<-150$ $\mathrm{0j}-{11}$ $>-150$
$\mathrm{0j}-{12}$ ${>}80$ $>-500$ $\mathrm{0j}-{13}$ [120,250] ${<}40$
$<-100$ $\mathrm{0j}-{14}$ $>-100$ $\mathrm{0j}-{15}$ [40,80] $<-150$
$\mathrm{0j}-{16}$ [$-150$,$-100$] $\mathrm{0j}-{17}$ $>-100$
$\mathrm{0j}-{18}$ [80,100] $>-500$ $\mathrm{0j}-{19}$ [100,120] $>-500$
$\mathrm{0j}-{20}$ ${>}120$ $>-500$ $\mathrm{0j}-{21}$ ${>}250$ ${>}0$ $>-500$

Definition of SRs in the 1-jet category for the $\Pe\tauh$ and $\mu\tauh$
final states.  Bin name [] $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ [] $D_{\zeta}$ []
$\mathrm{1j}-{1}$ ${<}40$ ${<}40$ $<-150$ $\mathrm{1j}-{2}$ [$-150$,$100$]
$\mathrm{1j}-{3}$ ${>}40$ $>-500$ $\mathrm{1j}-{4}$ [40,80] ${<}40$ $<-100$
$\mathrm{1j}-{5}$ ${>}50$ $\mathrm{1j}-{6}$ [40,80] $<-100$ $\mathrm{1j}-{7}$
$>-100$ $\mathrm{1j}-{8}$ ${>}80$ $>-500$ $\mathrm{1j}-{9}$ [80,120] ${<}40$
$<-100$ $\mathrm{1j}-{10}$ [40,80] $<-150$ $\mathrm{1j}-{11}$ $>-150$
$\mathrm{1j}-{12}$ [80,120] $>-500$ $\mathrm{1j}-{13}$ ${>}120$ $>-500$
$\mathrm{1j}-{14}$ [120,250] ${<}40$ $<-150$ $\mathrm{1j}-{15}$
[$-150$,$-100$] $\mathrm{1j}-{16}$ $>-100$ $\mathrm{1j}-{17}$ [40,80] $<-150$
$\mathrm{1j}-{18}$ [$-150$,$-100$] $\mathrm{1j}-{19}$ $>-100$
$\mathrm{1j}-{20}$ [80,100] $>-500$ $\mathrm{1j}-{21}$ [100,120] $>-500$
$\mathrm{1j}-{22}$ ${>}120$ $>-500$ $\mathrm{1j}-{23}$ ${>}250$ ${>}80$
$>-500$

Definition of SRs in the 0-jet category for the $\Pe\mu$ final state.  Bin
name [] $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ [] $D_{\zeta}$ [] $\mathrm{0j}-{1}$ ${<}40$ ${<}40$
$<-100$ $\mathrm{0j}-{2}$ ${>}0$ $\mathrm{0j}-{3}$ ${>}40$ $>-500$
$\mathrm{0j}-{4}$ [40,80] ${<}40$ $<-100$ $\mathrm{0j}-{5}$ ${>}50$
$\mathrm{0j}-{6}$ [40,80] $<-100$ $\mathrm{0j}-{7}$ $>-100$ $\mathrm{0j}-{8}$
${>}80$ $>-500$ $\mathrm{0j}-{9}$ [80,120] ${<}40$ $<-100$ $\mathrm{0j}-{10}$
$>-100$ $\mathrm{0j}-{11}$ [40,80] $<-150$ $\mathrm{0j}-{12}$ $>-150$
$\mathrm{0j}-{13}$ ${>}80$ $>-500$ $\mathrm{0j}-{14}$ [120,250] ${<}40$
$<-100$ $\mathrm{0j}-{15}$ $>-100$ $\mathrm{0j}-{16}$ [40,80] $<-150$
$\mathrm{0j}-{17}$ [$-150$,$-100$] $\mathrm{0j}-{18}$ $>-100$
$\mathrm{0j}-{19}$ [80,100] $>-500$ $\mathrm{0j}-{20}$ [100,120] $>-500$
$\mathrm{0j}-{21}$ ${>}120$ $>-500$ $\mathrm{0j}-{22}$ ${>}250$ ${>}0$ $>-500$

Definition of SRs in the 1-jet category for the $\Pe\mu$ final state.  Bin
name [] $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ [] $D_{\zeta}$ [] $\mathrm{1j}-{1}$ ${<}40$ ${<}40$
$<-150$ $\mathrm{1j}-{2}$ [$-150$,$100$] $\mathrm{1j}-{3}$ ${>}0$
$\mathrm{1j}-{4}$ ${>}40$ $>-500$ $\mathrm{1j}-{5}$ [40,80] ${<}40$ $<-100$
$\mathrm{1j}-{6}$ ${>}50$ $\mathrm{1j}-{7}$ [40,80] $>-100$ $\mathrm{1j}-{8}$
${>}40$ $>-500$ $\mathrm{1j}-{9}$ [80,120] ${<}40$ $<-100$ $\mathrm{1j}-{10}$
[40,80] $<-100$ $\mathrm{1j}-{11}$ [80,120] $>-500$ $\mathrm{1j}-{12}$
${>}120$ $>-500$ $\mathrm{1j}-{13}$ [120,250] ${<}40$ $<-150$
$\mathrm{1j}-{14}$ [$-150$,$-100$] $\mathrm{1j}-{15}$ $>-100$
$\mathrm{1j}-{16}$ [40,80] $<-150$ $\mathrm{1j}-{17}$ [$-150$,$-100$]
$\mathrm{1j}-{18}$ $>-100$ $\mathrm{1j}-{19}$ [80,100] $>-500$
$\mathrm{1j}-{20}$ [100,120] $>-500$ $\mathrm{1j}-{21}$ ${>}120$ $>-500$
$\mathrm{1j}-{22}$ ${>}250$ ${>}80$ $>-500$

##  0.5 Background estimation

The dominant background sources for this search are DY+jets, $\PW$+jets, QCD
multijet, , and diboson processes. These background sources have different
relative contributions in the different final states. For the $\tauh\tauh$
final state, the dominant background consists of QCD multijet and $\PW$+jets
processes, where one or more of the candidates originates from a parton and is
misidentified as a prompt . This background is predicted using a data-driven
method relying on a control region with a loose isolation requirement. For the
$\Pe\tauh$ and $\mu\tauh$ final states, the main backgrounds after the
baseline selection are DY+jets ($\approx$50%), $\PW$+jets ($\approx$30%), and
QCD multijet ($\approx$10%) events. The DY+jets background contribution, which
usually consists of events with two prompt leptons, is determined from
simulation after applying shape and normalization corrections that are
determined from data. The $\PW$+jets and QCD multijet backgrounds usually
contain a jet that is misidentified as , and are determined from a sideband
sample using a data-driven method similar to the one used in the $\tauh\tauh$
case. The main backgrounds in the $\Pe\mu$ final state originate from
($\approx$45%) and ($\approx$35%) events, and are estimated from simulation
after applying corrections derived from data. A detailed description of the
procedures used to estimate the background contributions from the different
sources follows.

###  0.5.1 Estimation of the Drell-Yan+jets background

The DY+jets background mainly originates from $\PZ\to\PGt\PGt$ decays. We
estimate the contribution of this background from simulation after corrections
based on control samples in data. If the boson mass shape or spectrum are
poorly modeled in the simulation, then distributions of the discriminating
kinematic variables can differ significantly between data and simulation,
especially at the high-end tails that are relevant for the SRs. We therefore
use a high-purity $\PZ\to\mu\mu$ control sample to compare the dimuon mass and
spectra between data and simulation and apply the observed differences as
corrections to the simulation in the search sample in the form of two-
dimensional weights parameterized in the generator-level boson mass and . The
correction factors range up to 30% for high mass and values. The full size of
this correction is propagated as a systematic uncertainty. The known
differences in the electron, muon, and identification and isolation
efficiencies, jet, electron, muon, and energy scales, and tagging efficiency
between data and simulation are taken into account. The uncertainties
corresponding to these corrections are also propagated to the final background
estimate. The corrected simulation is validated in the $\tauh\tauh$ final
state using a $\PZ\to\PGt\PGt$ control sample selected by inverting either the
$m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ or $\Sigma m_{\mathrm{T}}$ requirements used to define the
SRs. Additionally requiring a of at least 50for the $\tauh\tauh$ system
reduces the QCD multijet background and improves the purity of this control
sample. Figure 2 (left) shows that the corrected simulation agrees with the
data within the experimental uncertainties in this sample.

Finally, for the analysis in the leptonic final states, a normalization scale
factor as well as corrections to the distribution in the simulation are
derived from a very pure $\PZ\to\mu\mu$ control sample in data. Events in this
sample are selected by requiring two isolated muons and no additional leptons,
fewer than two jets, no -tagged jets, and a dimuon mass window of 75–105to
increase the probability that they originate from $\PZ\to\mu\mu$ decays to
$>$99%. After subtracting all other contributions estimated from simulation, a
normalization scale factor of $0.96\pm 0.05$ is extracted from the ratio of
data to simulated events. The uncertainty in the scale factor is dominated by
the systematic uncertainty. Figure 2 (right) shows a comparison of the dimuon
mass distribution in data and simulation after all the corrections, including
the normalization scale factor, have been applied.

Figure 2:  Left: visible mass spectrum used to validate the modeling of the
DY+jets background in the $\tauh\tauh$ final state in a $\PZ\to\PGt\PGt$
control sample selected with low $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ or $\Sigma m_{\mathrm{T}}$
and a minimum $\tauh\tauh$ system of 50. The last bin includes overflows.
Right: dimuon mass distribution in the high-purity $\PZ\to\mu\mu$ control
sample after all estimated correction factors have been applied to the
simulation. In the legend, “Top quark” refers to the background originating
from and single top quark production.

###  0.5.2 Estimation of the background from misidentified jets

#### Estimation in the $\tauh\tauh$ final state

After requiring two high-candidates, the dominant background for the search in
the $\tauh\tauh$ final state consists of QCD multijet and $\PW$+jets events,
in which one or both of the candidates originate from a jet and are
misidentified as prompt . This background is predicted using a method relying
on extrapolation from a data sample selected with a loose isolation
requirement. We estimate how frequently nonprompt or misidentified candidates
that are selected with the loose isolation working point also pass the very
tight isolation requirement applied in the SRs by studying a multijet-enriched
control sample where we require both candidates to have the same charge. The
same-charge $\tauh\tauh$ event sample is collected with the same trigger as
the search sample, in order to take into account any biases from the isolation
requirement present at the trigger level, which is not identical to the
isolation requirement that corresponds to the final analysis selection
criteria. We also require $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ to be small ($<$40) to reduce any
potential contributions from signal and $\PW$+jets events.

The final rate measured in this sample for misidentified selected with the
loose isolation working point to pass the very tight isolation requirement is
around 25%, but it depends considerably on the and the decay mode (one- or
three-prong) of the candidate, and the parent jet flavor. The extrapolation is
measured in bins of and separately for the different decay modes to reduce any
dependence on these factors. A systematic uncertainty of around 30% is
evaluated that accounts for the dependence of the misidentification rate on
the jet flavor, based on studies performed in simulation. We also noticed that
the extrapolation is affected by whether or not the candidate other than the
one for which the extrapolation is being applied is isolated. A correction and
a corresponding systematic uncertainty are derived for this effect.

Since the isolation efficiency for prompt candidates is only around 65%,
processes with genuine may leak into the data sideband regions and need to be
taken into account when calculating the final estimate for the background
processes with misidentified . To take this correctly into account, we define
three categories for events that have at least two loosely isolated
candidates: events with both candidates passing the very tight isolation
requirement, events with one passing and one failing the very tight isolation
requirement, and finally events with both candidates failing the very tight
isolation requirement. We then equate these observable quantities with the
expected sum totals of contributions from events with two prompt candidates,
two misidentified candidates, or one prompt and one misidentified candidate to
each of these populations. The contributions of background events with one or
two misidentified candidates in the SRs can then be determined analytically by
inverting this set of equations. A closure test is performed in events with
two oppositely charged candidates. where the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ or $\Sigma
m_{\mathrm{T}}$ requirements used to define the SRs are explicitly inverted to
avoid any overlap with the SRs. Figure 3 (left), which shows the
$m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ distribution in this sample, confirms that the background
estimation method is able to predict the background with misidentified
candidates within the systematic uncertainties.

#### Estimation in the $\Pe\tauh$ and $\mu\tauh$ final states

The misidentification of jets as candidates also gives rise to a major source
of background for the search in the $\Pe\tauh$ and $\mu\tauh$ final states,
mainly from $\PW$+jets events with leptonic boson decays. We estimate this
background from a sideband sample in data selected by applying the SR
selections, with the exception that the candidates are required to satisfy the
loose but not the tight isolation working point. A transfer factor for the
extrapolation in isolation is determined from a $\PW$+jets control sample
selected from events with one muon and at least one candidate that passes the
loose isolation requirement. In events with more than one candidate, the most
isolated candidate is used in the determination of the transfer factor. Events
with additional electrons or muons satisfying the criteria listed in Table 0.4
are rejected. In order to increase the purity of $\PW$+jets events in this
sample by reducing the contribution of and QCD multijet events, we require
$60<m_{\mathrm{T}}<120\GeV$, $\ptmiss>40\GeV$, no more than two jets, and an
azimuthal separation of at least 2.5 radians between any jet and the boson
reconstructed from the muon and the . The remaining sample has an expected
purity of $82\%$ for $\PW$+jets events. The transfer factor, $R$, is then
determined from this control sample, after subtracting the remaining
non-$\PW$+jets background contributions estimated from simulation, as follows:

$R=\frac{N^{\mathrm{CS}}_{\text{data}}({\mathrm{T}})-N^{\mathrm{CS}}_{\text{MC
no
\PW}}({\mathrm{T}})}{N^{\mathrm{CS}}_{\text{data}}({\mathrm{L\&!T}})-N^{\mathrm{CS}}_{\text{MC
no \PW}}({\mathrm{L\&!T}})}.$ (4)

Here, $N^{\mathrm{CS}}_{\text{data}}$ corresponds to the number of events in
the control sample in data. The parenthetical arguments ${\mathrm{T}}$ and
${\mathrm{L\&!T}}$ denote events in which the candidate satisfies the tight
isolation working point, and the loose but not the tight working point,
respectively. The transfer factor is determined in bins of and $\eta$ of the
candidate, as tabulated in Table 0.5.2.

Transfer factor $R$ determined from the $\PW$+jets control sample according to
Eq. (4), as a function of and $\eta$ of the candidate. The uncertainties are
statistical only.  $(\abs{\eta},\pt)$ 20–30 30–40 ${>}40\GeV$
$\abs{\eta}<0.80$ $0.74\pm 0.07$ $0.66\pm 0.01$ $0.56\pm 0.02$
$0.80<\abs{\eta}<1.44$ $0.68\pm 0.01$ $0.61\pm 0.01$ $0.39\pm 0.03$
$1.44<\abs{\eta}<1.57$ $0.68\pm 0.03$ $0.64\pm 0.08$ $1.57<\abs{\eta}<2.30$
$0.59\pm 0.02$ $0.61\pm 0.01$

The contribution of the background originating from a jet misidentified as a
candidate in each SR is then determined from the corresponding data sideband
region selected by requiring the candidate to satisfy the loose but not the
tight isolation working point as follows:

$N^{\mathrm{SR}}(\text{jet}\to\PGt)=R\,(N^{\text{sideband}}_{\text{data}}-N^{\text{sideband}}_{\mathrm{MC}}(\text{genuine}\,\PGt)),$
(5)

where $N^{\text{sideband}}_{\text{data}}$ represents the number of data events
in the sideband region, from which
$N^{\text{sideband}}_{\mathrm{MC}}(\text{genuine}~{}\PGt)$, the expected
contribution of events with genuine leptons determined from simulation with
generator-level matching, is subtracted. Figure 3 (middle) shows a comparison
of the data with the background prediction in the $\Pe\tauh$ final state for
the $\Sigma m_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution for the baseline selection, where the
ratio of signal to background is expected to be small.

###  0.5.3 Estimation in the $\Pe\mu$ final state

Jets may also be misidentified as electrons or muons, although the
misidentification probabilities for these objects are smaller than for . The
contribution of the background from misidentified jets in the $\Pe\mu$ final
state is determined from data using a matrix method. For each SR selection we
define four regions $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$, which contain events with two
leptons of either the same or opposite charge. We designate two categories for
the leptons: well-isolated (electrons with $I_{\text{rel}}<0.1$, muons with
$I_{\text{rel}}<0.15$), or loosely-isolated ($0.1<I_{\text{rel}}<0.2$ for
electrons, $0.15<I_{\text{rel}}<0.30$ for muons). In order to enrich the QCD
multijet contribution in events in the loosely-isolated category, we also
invert the baseline selection requirements affecting the separation between
the two leptons, , we now require $\Delta R(\ell_{1},\ell_{2})>3.5$ and
$\abs{\Delta\eta(\ell_{1},\ell_{2})}>2$. We use the designations $A$ ($B$) for
the regions with two well-isolated leptons of the same (opposite) charge, and
$C$ ($D$) for the corresponding regions with a loosely-isolated lepton. Region
$B$ constitutes the search region. The purity of the $C$ and $D$ regions in
QCD multijet events is $>$90%, while that of the $A$ regions is $\approx$55%
after the SR selections.

The charge and the isolation of misidentified leptons are expected to be
uncorrelated. However, we expect a correlation to be present for the other
backgrounds in these regions, , prompt leptons from events are expected to
have opposite charge. In order to account for this effect, we subtract the
contributions expected from simulation for all other backgrounds from the
observed numbers of events in the $A,C$, and $D$ regions to obtain the
estimate of the background originating from misidentified leptons in the SRs,
$N_{B}$, as follows:

$N_{B}=(N^{\text{data}}_{A}-N^{\text{MC}}_{A})\,\frac{N^{\text{data}}_{D}-N^{\text{MC}}_{D}}{N^{\text{data}}_{C}-N^{\text{MC}}_{C}}.$
(6)

The distribution of the muon $d_{z}$ is shown in Fig. 3 (right) for events in
the $\Pe\mu$ final state and illustrates the estimation of the QCD multijet
background using the matrix method. The data agree well with the predicted
background.

Figure 3:  Top left: closure test for the method used to estimate the
misidentification rate for the $\tauh\tauh$ final state in a data control
sample where the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ or $\Sigma m_{\mathrm{T}}$ requirements
used in the SRs are inverted. Top right: $\Sigma m_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution
for events in the $\Pe\tauh$ final state after the baseline selection, showing
the estimation of the background with a jet misidentified as a , which is
determined in a signal depleted control region. The last bin includes
overflows. Bottom: distribution of the muon $d_{z}$ in the $\Pe\mu$ final
state after the baseline selection, showing the estimation of the QCD multijet
background using the matrix method. In the legend,“Top quark” refers to the
background originating from and single top quark production. In all cases, the
predicted and observed yields show good agreement. Distributions for two
benchmark models of chargino-neutralino production, and one of direct left-
handed pair production, are overlaid. The ratio of signal to background is
expected to be small for these selections. The numbers within parentheses in
the legend correspond to the masses of the parent SUSY particle and the in GeV
for these benchmark models.

###  0.5.4 Estimation of other backgrounds

Smaller contributions exist from other SM backgrounds, including other diboson
processes, such as +jets, triboson, and Higgs boson processes. There are also
contributions from top quark processes: and single top quark production, or
top quark pair production in association with vector bosons. These are
estimated from simulation, using the known efficiency and energy scale
corrections and evaluating both experimental and theoretical uncertainties as
described in Section 0.6. The shape of the top quark spectrum is known to be
different between simulation and data from studies of the differential cross
section [78, 79]. The simulation is therefore reweighted by a correction
factor parameterized in the top quark to improve the modeling of the
background, and the full size of the correction is propagated as a systematic
uncertainty. The normalization of this background is checked in an $\Pe\mu$
control sample enriched in events, selected by requiring the presence of at
least two jets, at least one of which should be tagged. The ratio of data to
simulation for events is found to be $1.00\pm 0.05\syst\pm 0.01\stat$, ,
consistent with unity.

##  0.6 Systematic uncertainties

We rely on control samples in data in various ways for the estimation of the
major backgrounds in the analysis. The dominant uncertainties affecting these
estimates are therefore often statistical in nature, driven by the limited
event yields in the corresponding control samples. For the estimates that rely
on simulation, we also propagate systematic uncertainties corresponding to the
different corrections that are applied, as well as statistical uncertainties
related to the limited size of simulated samples. A more detailed discussion
of the assessment of systematic uncertainties affecting the individual
background sources follows.

In the $\tauh\tauh$ final state, we rely on an extrapolation in the isolation
to obtain an estimate of the background with misidentified candidates. The
uncertainty in this extrapolation is driven by the uncertainty introduced by
the dependence of the isolation on the jet flavor. It also includes the
statistical uncertainty in the control regions from which this extrapolation
is measured. The uncertainty in the identification and isolation efficiency
for prompt candidates is also propagated to the final estimate. Finally an
additional uncertainty is assessed for the fact that the extrapolations for
both candidates are correlated, leading to an overall systematic uncertainty
of 30–37% for this background estimate, depending on the SR. In the estimation
of the background from jets misidentified as in the $\Pe\tauh$ and $\mu\tauh$
final states, for which the transfer factor is estimated in a $\PW$+jets
control sample, the purity of this control sample is $\approx$85%, and the
remaining $\approx$15% is propagated as a systematic uncertainty. A systematic
uncertainty of up to 5% is considered for the rate of leptons misidentified as
candidates in the leptonic final states.

The effects of different sources of uncertainty, such as uncertainties related
to the jet energy scale; unclustered energy contributing to ; and muon,
electron, and energy scales that affect the simulated event samples used in
the evaluation of the transfer factor are also propagated to the final
background estimate. In the $\Pe\mu$ final state, the largest source of
uncertainty in the estimation of the background with misidentified leptons is
the contamination from other background processes in the control regions
$A,C$, and $D$ used for the background estimation. While the $C$ and $D$
regions are quite pure in QCD multijet events ($>$90%), the level of
contamination can be as high as $\approx$45% in the $A$ region. A $50\%$
uncertainty is assigned to the QCD multijet background prediction in this
final state to cover the potential effects of this contamination.

We rely mostly on simulation to obtain estimates of the other background
contributions and the signal yields. We propagate uncertainties related to the
tagging, trigger, and selection efficiencies, renormalization and
factorization scale uncertainties, PDF uncertainties, and uncertainties in the
jet energy scale, jet energy resolution, unclustered energy contributing to ,
and the energy scales of electrons, muons, and . For the DY+jets background,
we have an additional uncertainty related to the corrections applied to the
mass shape and distribution, while for the background, we propagate an
uncertainty arising from the corrections to the top quark spectrum. In the
leptonic final states, we derive normalization scale factors for the DY+jets
and backgrounds in high-purity control samples. We assess uncertainties in
these scale factors arising from the various systematic effects mentioned
above and propagate them to the corresponding background estimates. We also
monitor the trends of these scale factors by applying a series of selection
requirements on the discriminating kinematic variables that are as close as
possible to the selections applied in the SRs. In the $\tauh\tauh$ final
state, where the SRs are selected with stringent criteria applied to kinematic
variables, we assign a 20% normalization uncertainty for the production cross
sections of these backgrounds, as well as for other SM processes. In the
leptonic final states, an uncertainty of $10\%$ is assigned to the
normalization of rare SM backgrounds to cover potential variations between the
different SRs. As the background contribution can be sizeable in the leptonic
final states and in particular for the $\Pe\mu$ final state, a normalization
uncertainty of $25\%$ is considered for this contribution. These uncertainties
have been determined from sideband regions that are defined by the same
baseline cuts as those that define the search bins, except considering only
those bins of the search variables that are not used in the fit for the signal
extraction.

The uncertainty of 2.5% [80] in the integrated luminosity measurement is taken
into account in all background estimates for which we do not derive
normalization scale factors in dedicated data control samples, as well as for
signal processes. In the case of the signal models we assign additional
uncertainties due to differences between the fast simulation used for the
signal models and the full simulation used for the background estimates that
affect the resolution and lepton efficiencies. We also checked the effects of
possible mismodeling of the initial-state radiation (ISR), which affects the
total transverse momentum ($\pt^{\mathrm{ISR}}$) of the system of SUSY
particles, for the signal processes by reweighting the $\pt^{\mathrm{ISR}}$
distribution of simulated signal events. This reweighting procedure is based
on studies of the transverse momentum of boson events [81]. However these
effects were found to be negligible for our SR definitions. The main
systematic uncertainties for the signal models and background estimates are
summarized in Table 0.6.

Systematic uncertainties in the analysis for the signal models and the
different SM background predictions. The uncertainty values are evaluated
separately for each signal model and mass hypothesis studied and are listed as
percentages.  Uncertainty (%) Signal Misidentified $\Pe/\mu/\tauh$ DY+jets Top
quark backgrounds Rare SM efficiency 5–11 0.1–5 5–10 4–10 0.1–10 Electron
efficiency ($\Pe\mu$, $\Pe\tauh$) 3 — 3 3 3 Muon efficiency ($\Pe\mu$,
$\mu\tauh$) 2 — 2 2 2 Isolation extrapolation ($\Pe\tauh$, $\mu\tauh$,
$\tauh\tauh$) — 15–35 — — — Misidentified correlations ($\tauh\tauh$) — 8–13 —
— — QCD multijet normalization ($\Pe\mu$) — 50 — — — energy scale ($\Pe\tauh$,
$\mu\tauh$, $\tauh\tauh$) 0.1–23 — 1–34 0.1–24 0.1–33 Jet energy scale 0.1–45
— 0.5–24 0.5–39 0.1–67 Jet energy resolution 1–4 — 29–61 3–10 11–31
Unclustered energy 0.1–41 — 2–42 0.1–41 0.1–100 Electron energy scale
($\Pe\mu$, $\Pe\tauh$) 0.1–22 — 0.5–5 0.1–13 0.1–100 Muon energy scale
($\Pe\mu$, $\mu\tauh$) 0.1–11 — 0.1–18 0.1–11 0.1–100 tagging 0.5–3 1–4 0.1–3
4–20 0.1–2 Drell-Yan mass and  — — 0.5–29 — — Background cross sections — —
2–20 5–20 10–20 Fast vs. full simulation 1–30 — — — — Integrated luminosity
2.5 — — — 2.5

##  0.7 Results and interpretation

The results of the analysis in the $\tauh\tauh$ final state are summarized in
Table 0.7. The background estimates for the different SM processes are shown
with the full uncertainty, the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic
uncertainties. As discussed in Section 0.6, the uncertainties in the
$\tauh\tauh$ final state are dominated by the statistical uncertainties in the
data control regions and the number of simulated events produced. These
uncertainties are modeled in the likelihood function used for the statistical
interpretation of the results with gamma distributions [82]. If there is no
event in the control region used to obtain a given background estimate for any
SR or no event in the simulated sample surviving the SR selection criteria,
then the one standard deviation (s.d.) upper bound evaluated for that
background contribution is presented in the table. No significant excess is
observed in any of the SRs.

Final predicted and observed event yields in the three SRs defined for the
$\tauh\tauh$ final state with all statistical and systematic uncertainties
combined. For the background estimates with no event in the corresponding data
control region or in the simulated sample after the SR selection, the
predicted yield is indicated as being less than the one standard deviation
upper bound evaluated for that estimate. The central value and the
uncertainties for the total background estimate are then extracted from the
full pre-fit likelihood. Expected yields are also given for signal models of
direct pair production in the purely left- and right-handed scenarios and in
the maximally mixed scenario, with the and masses in GeV indicated in
parentheses.  SR1 SR2 SR3 Nonprompt and misidentified  0.68
${}^{+0.90}_{-0.68}$ $2.49\pm 1.83$ ${<}1.24$ Drell-Yan+jets background
0.80${}^{+0.97}_{-0.80}$ ${<}0.71$ ${<}0.71$ Top quark backgrounds
0.02${}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ $0.73\pm 0.31$ $1.76\pm 0.68$ Rare SM processes
$0.72\pm 0.38$ $0.20\pm 0.15$ 0.20 ${}^{+0.25}_{-0.20}$ Total background
2.22${}^{+1.37}_{-1.12}$ 4.35${}^{+1.75}_{-1.53}$ 3.70${}^{+1.52}_{-1.08}$
Left (150,1) $1.25\pm 0.40$ $2.91\pm 0.59$ $1.53\pm 0.33$ Right (150,1)
$1.09\pm 0.26$ $1.27\pm 0.20$ $0.74\pm 0.17$ Mixed (150,1) $1.04\pm 0.22$
$1.39\pm 0.27$ $0.92\pm 0.15$ Observed 0 5 2

A comparison of the observed data with the background prediction for the
search variables and $\Sigma m_{\mathrm{T}}$ is shown for the all-hadronic
final state in Fig. 4 after the baseline selection. Similar comparisons are
shown for the three search variables , $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$, and $D_{\zeta}$ used
in the leptonic final states ($\Pe\tauh$, $\mu\tauh$, and $\Pe\mu$) in Figs.
5–7. The background estimates derived for all the SRs in the leptonic final
states, as defined in Tables 0.4 and 0.4, together with their uncertainties,
are used as inputs to a simultaneous maximum likelihood fit to the observed
data. The results for the SR bins that are used for the signal extraction in
the final statistical interpretation procedure are shown in Figs. 8–10. Both
histograms before the simultaneous fitting of all SRs (pre-fit) and after
fitting (post-fit) are shown. The numbers of expected and observed events in
each SR are also reported in Tables .9–.9 in Appendix .9.

Figure 4: Distributions of the search variables (left) and $\Sigma
m_{\mathrm{T}}$ (right) for the $\tauh\tauh$ final state for events after the
baseline selection. The black points show the data. The background estimates
are represented with stacked histograms. Distributions for two benchmark
models of chargino-neutralino production, and one of direct left-handed pair
production, are overlaid. The numbers within parentheses in the legend
correspond to the masses of the parent SUSY particle and the in GeV for these
benchmark models. In both cases, the last bin includes overflows.

Figure 5: Distributions of the search variables (top left), $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$
(top right), and $D_{\zeta}$ (bottom) for the $\Pe\tauh$ final state for
events after the baseline selection. The black points show the data. The
background estimates are represented with stacked histograms. Distributions
for two benchmark models of chargino-neutralino production, and one of direct
left-handed pair production, are overlaid. The numbers within parentheses in
the legend correspond to the masses of the parent SUSY particle and the in GeV
for these benchmark models. In all cases, the last bin includes overflows.

Figure 6: Distributions of the search variables (top left), $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$
(top right), and $D_{\zeta}$ (bottom) for the $\mu\tauh$ final state for
events after the baseline selection. The black points show the data. The
background estimates are represented with stacked histograms. Distributions
for two benchmark models of chargino-neutralino production, and one of direct
left-handed pair production, are overlaid. The numbers within parentheses in
the legend correspond to the masses of the parent SUSY particle and the in GeV
for these benchmark models. In all cases, the last bin includes overflows.

Figure 7: Distributions of the search variables (top left), $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$
(top right), and $D_{\zeta}$ (bottom) for the $\Pe\mu$ final state for events
after the baseline selection. The black points show the data. The background
estimates are represented with stacked histograms. Distributions for two
benchmark models of chargino-neutralino production, and one of direct left-
handed pair production, are overlaid. The numbers within parentheses in the
legend correspond to the masses of the parent SUSY particle and the in GeV for
these benchmark models. In all cases, the last bin includes overflows.

Figure 8: Pre-fit (upper) and post-fit (lower) results for the SRs used for
the final signal extraction in the $\Pe\tauh$ final state. Distributions for
two benchmark models of chargino-neutralino production, and one of direct
left-handed pair production, are overlaid. The numbers within parentheses in
the legend correspond to the masses of the parent SUSY particle and the in GeV
for these benchmark models. In the ratio panels, the black markers indicate
the ratio of the observed data in each SR to the corresponding pre-fit or
post-fit SM background prediction.

Figure 9: Pre-fit (upper) and post-fit (lower) results for the SRs used for
the final signal extraction in the $\mu\tauh$ final state. Distributions for
two benchmark models of chargino-neutralino production, and one of direct
left-handed pair production, are overlaid. The numbers within parentheses in
the legend correspond to the masses of the parent SUSY particle and the in GeV
for these benchmark models. In the ratio panels, the black markers indicate
the ratio of the observed data in each SR to the corresponding pre-fit or
post-fit SM background prediction.

Figure 10: Pre-fit (upper) and post-fit (lower) results for the SRs used for
the final signal extraction in the $\Pe\mu$ final state. Distributions for two
benchmark models of chargino-neutralino production, and one of direct left-
handed pair production, are overlaid. The numbers within parentheses in the
legend correspond to the masses of the parent SUSY particle and the in GeV for
these benchmark models. In the ratio panels, the black markers indicate the
ratio of the observed data in each SR to the corresponding pre-fit or post-fit
SM background prediction.

No significant deviations from the expected SM background are observed in this
search. The results are interpreted as limits on the cross section for the
production of pairs in the context of simplified models. The produced is
assumed to always decay to a lepton and a . The 95% confidence level (CL)
upper limits on SUSY production cross sections are calculated using a modified
frequentist approach with the criterion [83, 84] and asymptotic approximation
for the test statistic [82, 85]. Since the cross section of direct pair
production and the lepton decay are strongly dependent on chirality, the
results are shown for three different scenarios. Figures 11-13 show the cross
section upper limits obtained for $\PSGt\PSGt$ production for the left-handed,
maximally mixed, and right-handed scenarios as a function of the mass for
different mass hypotheses, namely 1, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50. It can be seen
that the constraints are reduced for higher masses due to the smaller
experimental acceptance. The stronger than expected limits observed at low
mass values for a mass of 50in the purely left- and right-handed scenarios are
driven by a deficit in the $\mu\tauh$ final state in the 0–jet category,
leading to strong constraints on the predicted background contribution in SRs
sensitive to these signal models. The extremely small $\PSGt\PSGt$ production
cross sections make this scenario in general very challenging. This analysis
is most sensitive to scenarios with a left-handed and a nearly massless , in
which we exclude production rates larger than 1.26 (1.34) times the expected
SUSY cross section for a mass of 90 (125).

We also interpret the results as exclusion limits in simplified models of
mass-degenerate chargino-neutralino () and chargino pair ($\PSGc^{\mp}_{1}$)
production with decays to leptons in the final state via the decay chains
$\PSGcpmDo\to\PSGt\PGnGt/\widetilde{\nu}_{\tau}\PGt\to\PGt\PGnGt\PSGczDo$,
$\PSGczDt\to\PGt\PSGt\to\PGt\PGt\PSGczDo$. Equal branching fractions are
assumed for each of the two possible decay chains considered. The and
$\widetilde{\nu}_{\tau}$ masses are assumed to be degenerate in these models
and to have a value halfway between the mass of the parent sparticles and the
mass. Figure 14 shows the 95% CL exclusion limits in the mass plane of /versus
mass obtained for the scenario. We exclude /masses up to around 710for a
nearly massless hypothesis in this scenario. Figure 15 shows the corresponding
limits for the $\PSGc^{\mp}_{1}$ signal scenario in the plane of versus mass.
In this scenario, we exclude masses up to around 630for a nearly massless
hypothesis.

Figure 11: Excluded pair production cross section as a function of the mass
for the left-handed scenario, and for different masses of 1, 10, 20, 30, 40,
and 50from upper left to lower right, respectively. The inner (green) band and
the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%,
respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only
hypothesis. The red line indicates the NLO+NLL prediction for the signal
production cross section calculated with Resummino [47], while the red hatched
band represents the uncertainty in the prediction.

Figure 12: Excluded pair production cross section as a function of the mass
for the maximally-mixed scenario, and for different masses of 1, 10, 20, 30,
40, and 50from upper left to lower right, respectively. The inner (green) band
and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%,
respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only
hypothesis. The red line indicates the NLO+NLL prediction for the signal
production cross section calculated with Resummino [47], while the red hatched
band represents the uncertainty in the prediction.

Figure 13: Excluded pair production cross section as a function of the mass
for the right-handed scenario, and for different masses of 1, 10, 20, 30, 40,
and 50from upper right to lower right, respectively. The inner (green) band
and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%,
respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only
hypothesis. The red line indicates the NLO+NLL prediction for the signal
production cross section calculated with Resummino [47], while the red hatched
band represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Figure 14:  Exclusion
limits at 95% CL for chargino-neutralino production with decays through to
final states with leptons. The production cross sections are computed at
NLO+NLL precision assuming mass-degenerate wino and , light bino , and with
all the other sparticles assumed to be heavy and decoupled [72, 73]. The
regions enclosed by the thick black curves represent the observed exclusion at
95% CL, while the thick dashed red line indicates the expected exclusion at
95% CL. The thin black lines show the effect of variations of the signal cross
sections within theoretical uncertainties on the observed exclusion. The thin
red dashed lines indicate the region containing 68% of the distribution of
limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The green and blue
dashed lines show separately the expected exclusion regions for the analyses
in the all-hadronic and leptonic final states, respectively. Figure 15:
Exclusion limits at 95% CL for chargino pair production with decays through to
final states with leptons. The production cross sections are computed at
NLO+NLL precision assuming a wino-like , light bino , and with all the other
sparticles assumed to be heavy and decoupled [72, 73]. The regions enclosed by
the thick black curves represent the observed exclusion at 95% CL, while the
thick dashed red line indicates the expected exclusion at 95% CL. The thin
black lines show the effect of variations of the signal cross sections within
theoretical uncertainties on the observed exclusion. The thin red dashed lines
indicate the region containing 68% of the distribution of limits expected
under the background-only hypothesis. The green and blue dashed lines show
separately the expected exclusion regions for the analyses in the all-hadronic
and leptonic final states, respectively.

In order to simplify the reinterpretation of the results obtained in the
leptonic final states using other signal models, we define a small set of
aggregate SRs by combining subsets of the SRs. These aggregate SRs are chosen
to have sensitivity to a range of signal models. Since they are not exclusive,
the results obtained for these aggregate SRs cannot be statistically combined.
These results are tabulated in Table 0.7.

Definition of the aggregate SRs to be used for easier reinterpretation of the
results in the $\Pe\tauh$, $\mu\tauh$, and $\Pe\mu$ final states. In all of
these regions, a selection requirement of $D_{\zeta}>-500\GeV$ is applied.
Channel $N_{\text{jet}}$ [] $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ [] Background Observed
$\Pe\tauh$ 0 ${>}120$ ${>}100$ $10.8\pm 2.1$ $\pm 2.5$ 9 $\Pe\tauh$ 1 ${>}120$
${>}120$ $4.9\pm 1.5$ $\pm 1.9$ 4 $\Pe\tauh$ 1 ${>}250$ ${>}80$ $1.6\pm 0.9$
$\pm 1.2$ 0 $\mu\tauh$ 0 ${>}120$ ${>}100$ $14.4\pm 2.5$ $\pm 3.1$ 14
$\mu\tauh$ 1 ${>}120$ ${>}120$ $5.8\pm 1.8$ $\pm 2.7$ 7 $\mu\tauh$ 1 ${>}250$
${>}80$ $1.5\pm 0.9$ $\pm 1.1$ 1 $\Pe\mu$ 0 ${>}120$ ${>}100$ $9.7\pm 2.4$
$\pm 3.0$ 6 $\Pe\mu$ 1 ${>}120$ ${>}120$ $6.8\pm 2.2$ $\pm 2.7$ 6 $\Pe\mu$ 1
${>}250$ ${>}80$ $3.3\pm 2.0$ $\pm 2.3$ 1

##  0.8 Summary

A search for the direct and indirect production of sleptons has been performed
in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13in events with a
lepton pair and significant missing transverse momentum in the final state.
Both leptonic and hadronic decay modes of the leptons are considered. Search
regions are defined using discriminating kinematic observables that exploit
expected differences between signal and background. The data sample used for
this search corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 35.9. No excess above
the expected standard model background has been observed. Upper limits on the
cross section of direct pair production are derived for simplified models in
which each decays to a lepton and the lightest neutralino, with the latter
being assumed to be the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). The analysis
is most sensitive to a that is purely left-handed. For a left-handed of
90decaying to a nearly massless LSP, the observed limit is 1.26 times the
expected production cross section in the simplified model. The limits obtained
for direct pair production represent a considerable improvement in sensitivity
for this production mechanism with respect to previous ATLAS and CMS
measurements. Exclusion limits are also derived for simplified models of
chargino-neutralino and chargino pair production with decays to leptons that
involve indirect production via the chargino and neutralino decay chains. In
the chargino-neutralino production model, in which the parent chargino and
second-lightest neutralino are assumed to have the same mass, we exclude
chargino masses up to 710under the hypothesis of a nearly massless LSP. In the
chargino pair production model, we exclude chargino masses up to 630under the
same hypothesis. In both cases, we significantly extend the exclusion limits
with respect to previous CMS measurements.

###### Acknowledgements.

We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the
excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative
staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the
success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the
computing centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for
delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our
analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction
and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following
funding agencies: the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and
Economy and the Austrian Science Fund; the Belgian Fonds de la Recherche
Scientifique, and Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek; the Brazilian Funding
Agencies (CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP); the Bulgarian Ministry of
Education and Science; CERN; the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Ministry of
Science and Technology, and National Natural Science Foundation of China; the
Colombian Funding Agency (COLCIENCIAS); the Croatian Ministry of Science,
Education and Sport, and the Croatian Science Foundation; the Research
Promotion Foundation, Cyprus; the Secretariat for Higher Education, Science,
Technology and Innovation, Ecuador; the Ministry of Education and Research,
Estonian Research Council via IUT23-4 and IUT23-6 and European Regional
Development Fund, Estonia; the Academy of Finland, Finnish Ministry of
Education and Culture, and Helsinki Institute of Physics; the Institut
National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules / CNRS, and
Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives / CEA, France;
the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft, and Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher
Forschungszentren, Germany; the General Secretariat for Research and
Technology, Greece; the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund,
Hungary; the Department of Atomic Energy and the Department of Science and
Technology, India; the Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and
Mathematics, Iran; the Science Foundation, Ireland; the Istituto Nazionale di
Fisica Nucleare, Italy; the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, and
National Research Foundation (NRF), Republic of Korea; the Ministry of
Education and Science of the Republic of Latvia; the Lithuanian Academy of
Sciences; the Ministry of Education, and University of Malaya (Malaysia); the
Ministry of Science of Montenegro; the Mexican Funding Agencies (BUAP,
CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI); the Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment, New Zealand; the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission;
the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the National Science Centre,
Poland; the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal; JINR, Dubna; the
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the Federal
Agency of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation, Russian Academy of
Sciences, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, and the National Research
Center “Kurchatov Institute”; the Ministry of Education, Science and
Technological Development of Serbia; the Secretaría de Estado de
Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación, Programa Consolider-Ingenio 2010, Plan
Estatal de Investigación Científica y Técnica y de Innovación 2013-2016, Plan
de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación 2013-2017 del Principado de Asturias, and
Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional, Spain; the Ministry of Science,
Technology and Research, Sri Lanka; the Swiss Funding Agencies (ETH Board, ETH
Zurich, PSI, SNF, UniZH, Canton Zurich, and SER); the Ministry of Science and
Technology, Taipei; the Thailand Center of Excellence in Physics, the
Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology of Thailand,
Special Task Force for Activating Research and the National Science and
Technology Development Agency of Thailand; the Scientific and Technical
Research Council of Turkey, and Turkish Atomic Energy Authority; the National
Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and State Fund for Fundamental Researches,
Ukraine; the Science and Technology Facilities Council, UK; the US Department
of Energy, and the US National Science Foundation. Individuals have received
support from the Marie-Curie programme and the European Research Council and
Horizon 2020 Grant, contract No. 675440 (European Union); the Leventis
Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation;
the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la
Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the
Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the
F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the “Excellence of Science - EOS” - be.h
project n. 30820817; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the
Czech Republic; the Lendület (“Momentum”) Programme and the János Bolyai
Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National
Excellence Program ÚNKP, the NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845,
124850 and 125105 (Hungary); the Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research, India; the HOMING PLUS programme of the Foundation for Polish
Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund, the
Mobility Plus programme of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the
National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus
2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis
2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar
National Research Fund; the Programa de Excelencia María de Maeztu, and the
Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia
programmes cofinanced by EU-ESF, and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot
Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University, and the
Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project
(Thailand); the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens
Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] P. Ramond, “Dual theory for free fermions”,  Phys. Rev. D 3 (1971) 2415, 10.1103/PhysRevD.3.2415.
  * [2] Y. A. Gol’fand and E. P. Likhtman, “Extension of the algebra of Poincaré group generators and violation of P invariance”, JETP Lett. 13 (1971) 323\.
  * [3] A. Neveu and J. H. Schwarz, “Factorizable dual model of pions”,  Nucl. Phys. B 31 (1971) 86, 10.1016/0550-3213(71)90448-2.
  * [4] D. V. Volkov and V. P. Akulov, “Possible universal neutrino interaction”,  JETP Lett. 16 (1972) 438\.
  * [5] J. Wess and B. Zumino, “A Lagrangian model invariant under supergauge transformations”,  Phys. Lett. B 49 (1974) 52, 10.1016/0370-2693(74)90578-4.
  * [6] J. Wess and B. Zumino, “Supergauge transformations in four dimensions”,  Nucl. Phys. B 70 (1974) 39, 10.1016/0550-3213(74)90355-1.
  * [7] P. Fayet, “Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino”,  Nucl. Phys. B 90 (1975) 104, 10.1016/0550-3213(75)90636-7.
  * [8] H. P. Nilles, “Supersymmetry, supergravity and particle physics”,  Phys. Rep. 110 (1984) 1, 10.1016/0370-1573(84)90008-5.
  * [9] G. ’t Hooft, “Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking”,  NATO Sci. Ser. B 59 (1980) 135\.
  * [10] E. Witten, “Dynamical breaking of supersymmetry”,  Nucl. Phys. B 188 (1981) 513, 10.1016/0550-3213(81)90006-7.
  * [11] M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, “Supersymmetric technicolor”,  Nucl. Phys. B 189 (1981) 575, 10.1016/0550-3213(81)90582-4.
  * [12] S. Dimopoulos and S. Raby, “Supercolor”,  Nucl. Phys. B 192 (1981) 353, 10.1016/0550-3213(81)90430-2.
  * [13] S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, “Softly broken supersymmetry and SU(5)”,  Nucl. Phys. B 193 (1981) 150, 10.1016/0550-3213(81)90522-8.
  * [14] R. K. Kaul and P. Majumdar, “Cancellation of quadratically divergent mass corrections in globally supersymmetric spontaneously broken gauge theories”,  Nucl. Phys. B 199 (1982) 36, 10.1016/0550-3213(82)90565-X.
  * [15] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214.
  * [16] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235.
  * [17] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2013) 081, 10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571.
  * [18] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the Higgs boson mass from the $\textrm{H}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ and $\textrm{H}\rightarrow\textrm{ZZ}^{*}\rightarrow 4\ell$ channels with the ATLAS detector using 25 fb-1 of collision data”,  Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 052004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.052004, arXiv:1406.3827.
  * [19] CMS Collaboration, “Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 212, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3351-7, arXiv:1412.8662.
  * [20] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS experiments”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 191803, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803, arXiv:1503.07589.
  * [21] G. R. Farrar and P. Fayet, “Phenomenology of the production, decay, and detection of new hadronic states associated with supersymmetry”,  Phys. Lett. B 76 (1978) 575, 10.1016/0370-2693(78)90858-4.
  * [22] C. Boehm, A. Djouadi, and M. Drees, “Light scalar top quarks and supersymmetric dark matter”,  Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 035012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.035012, arXiv:hep-ph/9911496.
  * [23] C. Balázs, M. Carena, and C. E. M. Wagner, “Dark matter, light stops and electroweak baryogenesis”,  Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 015007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.015007, arXiv:hep-ph/403224.
  * [24] G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, “Supersymmetric dark matter”,  Phys. Rept. 267 (1996) 195, 10.1016/0370-1573(95)00058-5, arXiv:hep-ph/9506380.
  * [25] G. Belanger, S. Biswas, C. Boehm, and B. Mukhopadhyaya, “Light Neutralino Dark Matter in the MSSM and Its Implication for LHC Searches for Staus”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 076, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)076, arXiv:1206.5404.
  * [26] E. Arganda, V. Martin-Lozano, A. D. Medina, and N. Mileo, “Potential discovery of staus through heavy Higgs boson decays at the LHC”,  JHEP 09 (2018) 056, 10.1007/JHEP09(2018)056, arXiv:1804.10698.
  * [27] G. Hinshaw et al., “Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: cosmological parameter results”,  Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208 (2013) 19, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19, arXiv:1212.5226.
  * [28] K. Griest and D. Seckel, “Three exceptions in the calculation of relic abundances”,  Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 3191, 10.1103/PhysRevD.43.3191.
  * [29] D. A. Vasquez, G. Belanger, and C. Boehm, “Revisiting light neutralino scenarios in the MSSM”,  Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 095015, 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.095015, arXiv:1108.1338.
  * [30] S. F. King, J. P. Roberts, and D. P. Roy, “Natural dark matter in SUSY GUTs with non-universal gaugino masses”,  JHEP 10 (2007) 106, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/10/106, arXiv:0705.4219.
  * [31] M. Battaglia et al., “Proposed post-LEP benchmarks for supersymmetry”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 22 (2001) 535, 10.1007/s100520100792, arXiv:hep-ph/0106204.
  * [32] R. L. Arnowitt et al., “Determining the dark matter relic density in the minimal supergravity stau-neutralino co-annihilation region at the Large Hadron Collider”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 231802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.231802, arXiv:0802.2968.
  * [33] CMS Collaboration, “Interpretation of searches for supersymmetry with simplified models”,  Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 052017, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.052017, arXiv:1301.2175.
  * [34] J. Alwall, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, “Simplified models for a first characterization of new physics at the LHC”,  Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 075020, 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.075020.
  * [35] J. Alwall, M.-P. Le, M. Lisanti, and J. Wacker, “Model-independent jets plus missing energy searches”,  Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 015005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.015005.
  * [36] LHC New Physics Working Group, “Simplified models for LHC new physics searches”,  J. Phys. G 39 (2012) 105005, 10.1088/0954-3899/39/10/105005, arXiv:1105.2838.
  * [37] ALEPH Collaboration, “Search for scalar leptons in e+e- collisions at center-of-mass energies up to 209 GeV”,  Phys. Lett. B 526 (2002) 206, 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01494-0, arXiv:hep-ex/0112011.
  * [38] DELPHI Collaboration, “Searches for supersymmetric particles in e+e- collisions up to 208 GeV and interpretation of the results within the MSSM”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 31 (2003) 421, 10.1140/epjc/s2003-01355-5, arXiv:hep-ex/0311019.
  * [39] L3 Collaboration, “Search for scalar leptons and scalar quarks at LEP”,  Phys. Lett. B 580 (2004) 37, 10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.010, arXiv:hep-ex/0310007.
  * [40] OPAL Collaboration, “Search for anomalous production of dilepton events with missing transverse momentum in e+e- collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 183 GeV to 209 GeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 32 (2004) 453, 10.1140/epjc/s2003-01466-y, arXiv:hep-ex/0309014.
  * [41] LEP SUSY Working Group (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL), “Combined LEP selectron/smuon/stau results, 183-208 GeV”, (2004). LEPSUSYWG/04-01.1.
  * [42] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for the direct production of charginos, neutralinos and staus in final states with at least two hadronically decaying taus and missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 10 (2014) 96, 10.1007/JHEP10(2014)096, arXiv:1407.0350.
  * [43] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for the electroweak production of supersymmetric particles in $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 052002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.052002, arXiv:1509.07152.
  * [44] CMS Collaboration, “Search for electroweak production of charginos in final states with two tau leptons in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  JHEP 04 (2017) 018, 10.1007/JHEP04(2017)018, arXiv:1610.04870.
  * [45] CMS Collaboration, “Search for supersymmetry in the vector-boson fusion topology in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV”,  JHEP 11 (2015) 189, 10.1007/JHEP11(2015)189, arXiv:1508.07628.
  * [46] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for the direct production of charginos and neutralinos in final states with tau leptons in $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV $pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 154, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5583-9, arXiv:1708.07875.
  * [47] B. Fuks, M. Klasen, D. R. Lamprea, and M. Rothering, “Revisiting slepton pair production at the Large Hadron Collider”,  JHEP 01 (2014) 168, 10.1007/JHEP01(2014)168, arXiv:1310.2621.
  * [48] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,  JINST 12 (2017) P01020, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.
  * [49] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [50] CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,  JINST 12 (2017) P10003, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965.
  * [51] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of missing energy reconstruction in 13 TeV pp collision data using the CMS detector”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-16-004, 2016.
  * [52] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [53] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2, arXiv:1111.6097.
  * [54] CMS Collaboration, “Study of pileup removal algorithms for jets”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-14-001, 2014.
  * [55] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment”,  JINST 8 (2013) P04013, 10.1088/1748-0221/8/04/P04013, arXiv:1211.4462.
  * [56] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) P05011, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011, arXiv:1712.07158.
  * [57] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$”,  JINST 10 (2015) P06005, 10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005, arXiv:1502.02701.
  * [58] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at $\sqrt{s}=7$”,  JINST 7 (2012) P10002, 10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002, arXiv:1206.4071.
  * [59] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of tau-lepton reconstruction and identification in CMS”,  JINST 7 (2012) P01001, 10.1088/1748-0221/7/01/P01001, arXiv:1109.6034.
  * [60] CMS Collaboration, “Reconstruction and identification of $\tau$ lepton decays to hadrons and $\nu_{\tau}$ at CMS”,  JINST 11 (2016) P01019, 10.1088/1748-0221/11/01/P01019, arXiv:1510.07488.
  * [61] CMS Collaboration, “Performance of reconstruction and identification of tau leptons in their decays to hadrons and tau neutrino in LHC Run-2”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TAU-16-002, 2016.
  * [62] J. Alwall et al., “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations”,  JHEP 07 (2014) 079, 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079, arXiv:1405.0301.
  * [63] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [64] P. Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”,  JHEP 11 (2004) 040, 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146.
  * [65] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method”,  JHEP 11 (2007) 070, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070, arXiv:0709.2092.
  * [66] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX”,  JHEP 06 (2010) 043, 10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043, arXiv:1002.2581.
  * [67] E. Re, “Single-top $Wt$-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1547, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1547-z, arXiv:1009.2450.
  * [68] T. Sjöstrand et al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159, 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024, arXiv:1410.3012.
  * [69] GEANT4 Collaboration, “ — a simulation toolkit”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8.
  * [70] A. Kalogeropoulos and J. Alwall, “The SysCalc code: A tool to derive theoretical systematic uncertainties”, (2018). arXiv:1801.08401.
  * [71] S. Abdullin et al., “The fast simulation of the CMS detector at LHC”,  J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 331 (2011) 032049, 10.1088/1742-6596/331/3/032049.
  * [72] B. Fuks, M. Klasen, D. R. Lamprea, and M. Rothering, “Gaugino production in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV”,  JHEP 10 (2012) 081, 10.1007/JHEP10(2012)081, arXiv:1207.2159.
  * [73] B. Fuks, M. Klasen, D. R. Lamprea, and M. Rothering, “Precision predictions for electroweak superpartner production at hadron colliders with Resummino”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2480, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2480-0, arXiv:1304.0790.
  * [74] C. G. Lester and D. J. Summers, “Measuring masses of semiinvisibly decaying particles pair produced at hadron colliders”,  Phys. Lett. B 463 (1999) 99, 10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00945-4, arXiv:hep-ph/9906349.
  * [75] A. Barr, C. Lester, and P. Stephens, “A variable for measuring masses at hadron colliders when missing energy is expected; $m_{\mathrm{T2}}$: the truth behind the glamour”,  J. Phys. G 29 (2003) 2343, 10.1088/0954-3899/29/10/304, arXiv:hep-ph/0304226.
  * [76] C. Cuenca Almenar, “Search for the neutral MSSM Higgs bosons in the ditau decay channels at CDF Run II”.  PhD thesis, Valencia U., IFIC, 2008.  10.2172/953708.
  * [77] CMS Collaboration, “Search for neutral MSSM Higgs bosons decaying to a pair of tau leptons in pp collisions”,  JHEP 10 (2014) 160, 10.1007/JHEP10(2014)160, arXiv:1408.3316.
  * [78] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the differential cross section for top quark pair production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8\,\text{TeV}$”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 542, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3709-x, arXiv:1505.04480.
  * [79] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of normalized differential $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ cross sections in the dilepton channel from pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV”,  JHEP 04 (2018) 060, 10.1007/JHEP04(2018)060, arXiv:1708.07638.
  * [80] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017.
  * [81] CMS Collaboration, “Search for top-squark pair production in the single-lepton final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2677, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2677-2, arXiv:1308.1586.
  * [82] The ATLAS Collaboration, The CMS Collaboration, The LHC Higgs Combination Group, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011”, Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011.
  * [83] T. Junk, “Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics”,  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 434 (1999) 435, 10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2, arXiv:hep-ex/9902006.
  * [84] A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: the $\text{CL}_{\text{s}}$ technique”,  J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693, 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313.
  * [85] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0, arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z].

##  .9 Event yields for the analysis in the $\Pe\tauh$, $\mu\tauh$, and
$\Pe\mu$ final states

Numbers of expected and observed events in the $\Pe\tauh$ channel. The total
background includes the total uncertainty, while for each process the
statistical and systematic uncertainties are quoted separately. The two
numbers that are quoted for the benchmark signal models are the masses of the
parent SUSY particle and the , respectively, in GeV. In the case of the
chargino-neutralino signal models, the first number within parentheses
indicates the common and mass in GeV.  SR label DY+jets WW+jets WW+jets Rest
Jet$\rightarrow\tau_{h}$ Total Bkg (400,1) (400,175) $\PSGt_{L}$ (90,1)
Observed $\mathrm{0j}-{1}$ $0.4\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.4$ $4.8\pm 2.2$ $\pm 2.4$
${<}0.1$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.3^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$ ${<}0.1$ $4.2\pm 1.6$ $\pm 1.7$
$9.8\pm 2.8$ $\pm 3.0$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 4 $\mathrm{0j}-{2}$ $0.7\pm
0.5$ $\pm 0.7$ $11.4\pm 4.1$ $\pm 4.4$ $0.7$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.9}_{-0.7}$ $0.6\pm
0.4$ $\pm 0.6$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.9}_{-0.4}$ $29.8\pm 3.2$ $\pm 5.5$
$43.7\pm 5.2$ $\pm 7.2$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 45 $\mathrm{0j}-{3}$
$0.4\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.4$ $1.0\pm 0.7$ $\pm 0.8$ ${<}0.1$ $0.4$ $\pm$
$0.3^{+0.5}_{-0.4}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $1.8\pm 0.8$ $\pm 1.0$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$
${<}0.1$ 2 $\mathrm{0j}-{4}$ ${<}0.1$ $80.3\pm 9.1$ $\pm 17.3$ $0.2$ $\pm$
$0.2^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$ $0.9\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.7$ $1.1$ $\pm$ $0.8^{+3.7}_{-1.1}$
$33.3\pm 6.3$ $\pm 8.0$ $115.8\pm 11.1$ $\pm 19.4$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.0$
$\pm$ $0.0^{+0.7}_{-0.0}$ 104 $\mathrm{0j}-{5}$ $7.4\pm 1.7$ $\pm 2.3$ $2.5\pm
1.8$ $\pm 1.8$ $3.6\pm 0.8$ $\pm 1.5$ $17.8\pm 1.9$ $\pm 6.2$ $1.4\pm 0.3$
$\pm 0.9$ $88.7\pm 7.8$ $\pm 15.4$ $121.5\pm 8.4$ $\pm 16.9$ $0.5\pm 0.1$ $\pm
0.2$ $0.4\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.3$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.3^{+1.0}_{-0.4}$ 121
$\mathrm{0j}-{6}$ $3.9\pm 1.2$ $\pm 2.4$ $4.8\pm 1.9$ $\pm 2.0$ $2.6\pm 0.7$
$\pm 1.3$ $16.3\pm 1.8$ $\pm 6.5$ $1.7$ $\pm$ $0.9^{+2.6}_{-1.7}$ $174.9\pm
10.4$ $\pm 28.2$ $204.2\pm 10.8$ $\pm 29.3$ $0.2\pm 0.0$ $\pm 0.1$ $0.2\pm
0.0$ $\pm 0.2$ $1.3$ $\pm$ $0.6^{+2.0}_{-1.3}$ 221 $\mathrm{0j}-{7}$ ${<}0.5$
${<}0.1$ $0.2$ $\pm$ $0.2^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ $0.8$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+1.2}_{-0.8}$
$0.1\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $1.1\pm 0.8$ $\pm 0.8$ $2.2\pm 0.9$ $\pm 1.6$ ${<}0.1$
${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 4 $\mathrm{0j}-{8}$ 0.4 $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.9}_{-0.4}$ ${<}0.1$
$0.0$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.3}_{-0.0}$ $0.1$ $\pm$ $0.1^{+0.4}_{-0.1}$ ${<}1.9$
$4.8\pm 1.8$ $\pm 1.9$ $5.4\pm 1.8$ $\pm 2.9$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.3$ $\pm$
$0.2^{+0.7}_{-0.3}$ 4 $\mathrm{0j}-{9}$ $19.4\pm 2.7$ $\pm 5.0$ $82.0\pm 9.3$
$\pm 17.7$ $9.9\pm 1.3$ $\pm 3.0$ $36.9\pm 2.7$ $\pm 11.5$ $3.1\pm 1.4$ $\pm
3.1$ $308.8\pm 14.6$ $\pm 48.5$ $460.1\pm 17.8$ $\pm 53.4$ $0.6\pm 0.1$ $\pm
0.2$ $0.5\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $3.3$ $\pm$ $1.0^{+5.5}_{-3.3}$ 421
$\mathrm{0j}-{10}$ 1.7 $\pm$ $0.8^{+2.3}_{-1.7}$ ${<}0.1$ $0.5$ $\pm$
$0.3^{+0.7}_{-0.5}$ $3.0\pm 0.8$ $\pm 1.5$ $0.2\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $22.1\pm
4.0$ $\pm 5.2$ $27.5\pm 4.1$ $\pm 5.9$ $0.2$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$
${<}0.2$ ${<}0.1$ 27 $\mathrm{0j}-{11}$ $9.2\pm 1.8$ $\pm 4.8$ $1.3$ $\pm$
$1.3^{+1.4}_{-1.3}$ $8.0\pm 1.2$ $\pm 3.5$ $21.8\pm 2.1$ $\pm 9.1$ $0.6$ $\pm$
$0.1^{+4.8}_{-0.6}$ $194.2\pm 11.5$ $\pm 31.3$ $235.2\pm 12.0$ $\pm 33.5$
$0.6\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.6\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.3$ $0.5$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+1.5}_{-0.5}$
227 $\mathrm{0j}-{12}$ $2.3\pm 0.9$ $\pm 2.0$ ${<}0.1$ $1.1\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.7$
$2.4\pm 0.7$ $\pm 1.4$ $0.5\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $18.0\pm 3.5$ $\pm 4.4$ $24.2\pm
3.7$ $\pm 5.1$ $1.0\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $1.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.3$ ${<}0.1$ 26
$\mathrm{0j}-{13}$ 0.6 $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$ ${<}0.1$ $0.2$ $\pm$
$0.2^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $0.6\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.5$ ${<}0.1$ $0.5^{+0.8}_{-0.5}$ $\pm
0.8$ $2.0\pm 1.0$ $\pm 1.2$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.0$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.7}_{-0.0}$
1 $\mathrm{0j}-{14}$ $5.2\pm 1.3$ $\pm 3.5$ $4.3\pm 2.1$ $\pm 2.3$ $4.0\pm
0.8$ $\pm 1.5$ $9.5\pm 1.4$ $\pm 5.5$ $2.2\pm 1.5$ $\pm 1.5$ $26.1\pm 4.3$
$\pm 5.8$ $51.2\pm 5.4$ $\pm 9.3$ $0.5\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.2\pm 0.0$ $\pm
0.1$ $1.1$ $\pm$ $0.5^{+1.2}_{-1.1}$ 46 $\mathrm{0j}-{15}$ 0.7 $\pm$
$0.5^{+1.1}_{-0.7}$ ${<}0.1$ $0.7\pm 0.3$ $\pm 0.5$ $1.6\pm 0.6$ $\pm 1.0$
$0.1$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ $10.1\pm 2.6$ $\pm 3.0$ $13.1\pm 2.7$ $\pm
3.4$ ${<}0.1$ $0.1\pm 0.0$ $\pm 0.1$ $0.1$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.8}_{-0.1}$ 9
$\mathrm{0j}-{16}$ $3.1\pm 1.0$ $\pm 2.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.8\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.5$
$2.1\pm 0.7$ $\pm 1.0$ ${<}0.1$ $6.2\pm 2.3$ $\pm 2.5$ $12.3\pm 2.6$ $\pm 3.4$
${<}0.2$ $0.2\pm 0.0$ $\pm 0.1$ $0.5$ $\pm$ $0.3^{+1.2}_{-0.5}$ 17
$\mathrm{0j}-{17}$ 1.1 $\pm$ $0.6^{+1.2}_{-1.1}$ ${<}0.1$ $0.5\pm 0.3$ $\pm
0.4$ $1.2\pm 0.5$ $\pm 0.7$ ${<}0.1$ $2.9\pm 1.3$ $\pm 1.3$ $5.7\pm 1.5$ $\pm
1.9$ $0.1$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ ${<}0.1$ $0.0$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+1.4}_{-0.0}$
4 $\mathrm{0j}-{18}$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$ ${<}0.1$ $0.3$ $\pm$
$0.2^{+0.5}_{-0.3}$ $0.8\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.7$ ${<}0.2$ $6.0\pm 2.0$ $\pm 2.2$
$7.8\pm 2.1$ $\pm 2.4$ ${<}0.5$ $0.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 12
$\mathrm{0j}-{19}$ $0.3$ $\pm$ $0.3^{+0.8}_{-0.3}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.2$ $0.6$
$\pm$ $0.4^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$ ${<}0.3$ $3.0\pm 1.5$ $\pm 1.5$ $4.2\pm 1.5$ $\pm
1.9$ $0.9\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.3$ $0.5\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.3$ ${<}0.1$ 10
$\mathrm{0j}-{20}$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+1.0}_{-0.4}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.6$
$\pm$ $0.4^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$ $0.9\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.3$ $5.0\pm 1.7$ $\pm 1.9$
$6.9\pm 1.8$ $\pm 2.3$ $2.4\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.5$ $1.6\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ ${<}0.1$
5 $\mathrm{0j}-{21}$ $1.1\pm 0.6$ $\pm 0.6$ ${<}0.1$ $0.5\pm 0.3$ $\pm 0.3$
$1.7\pm 0.6$ $\pm 0.8$ $0.6\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.4$ ${<}0.1$ $3.9\pm 1.0$ $\pm 1.2$
$0.6\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.2\pm 0.0$ $\pm 0.1$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.3^{+0.5}_{-0.4}$
4 $\mathrm{1j}-{1}$ ${<}0.1$ $8.0\pm 2.4$ $\pm 2.6$ $0.2$ $\pm$
$0.2^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$ ${<}0.3$ $0.2$ $\pm$ $0.1^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $6.1\pm 2.0$ $\pm
2.2$ $14.4\pm 3.1$ $\pm 3.5$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 12 $\mathrm{1j}-{2}$
$0.3$ $\pm$ $0.3^{+0.9}_{-0.3}$ $31.2\pm 4.5$ $\pm 7.1$ ${<}0.2$ $0.8\pm 0.4$
$\pm 0.7$ $0.4^{+0.9}_{-0.4}$ $\pm 1.3$ $32.5\pm 4.8$ $\pm 6.8$ $65.2\pm 6.7$
$\pm 10.0$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 70 $\mathrm{1j}-{3}$ $2.8\pm 1.0$ $\pm
2.8$ $26.8\pm 4.2$ $\pm 6.0$ $1.4\pm 0.5$ $\pm 0.8$ $1.2$ $\pm$
$0.6^{+1.4}_{-1.2}$ $0.7^{+1.2}_{-0.7}$ $\pm 2.1$ $46.1\pm 5.5$ $\pm 8.8$
$79.1\pm 7.1$ $\pm 11.3$ $0.2\pm 0.0$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.2$ $\pm$
$0.0^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $0.3$ $\pm$ $0.2^{+0.8}_{-0.3}$ 91 $\mathrm{1j}-{4}$ 0.4
$\pm$ $0.4^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$ $7.1\pm 1.9$ $\pm 2.3$ $0.5\pm 0.3$ $\pm 0.5$ $0.8$
$\pm$ $0.4^{+1.4}_{-0.8}$ $0.7\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.5$ $7.8\pm 2.4$ $\pm 2.6$
$17.3\pm 3.1$ $\pm 3.9$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 12 $\mathrm{1j}-{5}$
$2.7\pm 1.0$ $\pm 1.9$ $36.1\pm 5.4$ $\pm 8.3$ $0.3$ $\pm$ $0.2^{+1.3}_{-0.3}$
$0.4\pm 0.3$ $\pm 0.4$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.3^{+0.9}_{-0.4}$ $36.6\pm 5.6$ $\pm 7.8$
$76.4\pm 7.8$ $\pm 11.6$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 63 $\mathrm{1j}-{6}$
$25.8\pm 3.1$ $\pm 5.9$ $16.3\pm 3.4$ $\pm 4.4$ $12.6\pm 1.5$ $\pm 4.1$
$10.5\pm 1.5$ $\pm 3.7$ $0.1^{+1.0}_{-0.1}$ $\pm 1.1$ $143.3\pm 10.1$ $\pm
23.7$ $208.7\pm 11.3$ $\pm 25.5$ $0.9\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.6$ $0.9\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.4$
$0.7$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.9}_{-0.7}$ 224 $\mathrm{1j}-{7}$ $16.4\pm 2.4$ $\pm 3.9$
$15.3\pm 2.9$ $\pm 4.1$ $4.5\pm 0.9$ $\pm 2.8$ $4.9\pm 1.0$ $\pm 2.5$ $1.3$
$\pm$ $0.6^{+1.6}_{-1.3}$ $116.7\pm 8.7$ $\pm 19.6$ $159.1\pm 9.6$ $\pm 20.8$
$0.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.3$ $0.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $1.1$ $\pm$ $0.5^{+1.2}_{-1.1}$
161 $\mathrm{1j}-{8}$ $2.2\pm 1.0$ $\pm 1.4$ $1.8\pm 1.1$ $\pm 1.1$ $0.7$
$\pm$ $0.4^{+1.2}_{-0.7}$ $1.3\pm 0.5$ $\pm 0.8$ $1.0$ $\pm$
$0.8^{+1.1}_{-1.0}$ $8.2\pm 2.1$ $\pm 2.5$ $15.1\pm 2.8$ $\pm 3.6$ $0.6\pm
0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.4\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 19 $\mathrm{1j}-{9}$ $3.3\pm
1.1$ $\pm 1.3$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.5}_{-0.4}$ $0.7\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.6$ $0.2$
$\pm$ $0.2^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ $0.4^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$ $\pm 0.5$ $2.8\pm 1.5$ $\pm 1.5$
$7.8\pm 2.0$ $\pm 2.2$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 9 $\mathrm{1j}-{10}$ $4.4\pm
1.3$ $\pm 3.9$ $0.9\pm 0.8$ $\pm 0.8$ $2.5\pm 0.7$ $\pm 1.2$ $2.5\pm 0.7$ $\pm
1.8$ $0.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $15.1\pm 3.5$ $\pm 4.1$ $25.5\pm 3.9$ $\pm 6.2$
$0.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $0.2\pm 0.0$ $\pm 0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 22 $\mathrm{1j}-{11}$
$51.5\pm 4.3$ $\pm 9.2$ $2.7\pm 1.2$ $\pm 1.4$ $17.0\pm 1.7$ $\pm 5.3$
$14.0\pm 1.7$ $\pm 7.4$ $1.0\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.7$ $113.2\pm 9.4$ $\pm 19.4$
$199.3\pm 10.7$ $\pm 23.3$ $1.2\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.5$ $1.4\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.3$ $0.4$
$\pm$ $0.3^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$ 168 $\mathrm{1j}-{12}$ $10.1\pm 1.9$ $\pm 6.7$ $0.8$
$\pm$ $0.8^{+0.8}_{-0.8}$ $2.7\pm 0.7$ $\pm 1.4$ $3.0\pm 0.8$ $\pm 1.8$
$0.5\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.2$ $28.2\pm 4.3$ $\pm 6.0$ $45.3\pm 4.9$ $\pm 9.3$ $2.2\pm
0.1$ $\pm 0.6$ $2.0\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.7$ ${<}0.1$ 41 $\mathrm{1j}-{13}$ ${<}0.1$
$0.2\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.2$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.2$ $0.2$ $\pm$ $0.1^{+0.8}_{-0.2}$
$1.2\pm 0.8$ $\pm 0.8$ $1.5\pm 0.9$ $\pm 1.2$ $0.6\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $0.4\pm
0.1$ $\pm 0.3$ ${<}0.1$ 1 $\mathrm{1j}-{14}$ ${<}0.4$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.2$
$0.2\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.2$ ${<}0.1$ $0.4^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$ $\pm 0.6$
$0.7^{+0.7}_{-0.7}$ $\pm 0.8$ $0.1$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ ${<}0.1$
${<}0.1$ 2 $\mathrm{1j}-{15}$ $3.7\pm 1.2$ $\pm 3.0$ $0.9\pm 0.6$ $\pm 0.6$
$0.2$ $\pm$ $0.2^{+0.7}_{-0.2}$ $1.8\pm 0.6$ $\pm 0.9$ $0.1\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$
$1.5\pm 1.5$ $\pm 1.5$ $8.3\pm 2.1$ $\pm 3.6$ ${<}0.2$ ${<}0.1$ $0.0$ $\pm$
$0.0^{+0.7}_{-0.0}$ 10 $\mathrm{1j}-{16}$ $52.4\pm 4.3$ $\pm 18.7$ $19.8\pm
3.2$ $\pm 6.6$ $12.6\pm 1.5$ $\pm 7.9$ $18.9\pm 1.9$ $\pm 9.3$ $4.7\pm 1.9$
$\pm 2.0$ $54.2\pm 6.9$ $\pm 10.6$ $162.5\pm 9.2$ $\pm 25.7$ $2.8\pm 0.2$ $\pm
0.7$ $1.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.5$ $2.9\pm 0.9$ $\pm 2.4$ 150 $\mathrm{1j}-{17}$
$3.8$ $\pm$ $1.2^{+4.2}_{-3.8}$ ${<}0.1$ $2.5\pm 0.7$ $\pm 1.6$ $2.4\pm 0.7$
$\pm 1.3$ $0.2\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $5.8\pm 2.6$ $\pm 2.7$ $14.7\pm 3.0$ $\pm
5.4$ $0.8\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $0.4$ $\pm$
$0.4^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$ 15 $\mathrm{1j}-{18}$ $8.5\pm 1.7$ $\pm 5.4$ ${<}0.1$
$3.3\pm 0.7$ $\pm 1.5$ $2.5\pm 0.7$ $\pm 2.2$ $0.1^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ $\pm 0.2$
$3.2\pm 2.5$ $\pm 2.6$ $17.5\pm 3.2$ $\pm 6.6$ $0.7\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.4\pm
0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 18 $\mathrm{1j}-{19}$ $8.3\pm 1.7$ $\pm 4.9$ $0.4\pm
0.4$ $\pm 0.4$ $1.5\pm 0.5$ $\pm 0.9$ $1.0$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+1.5}_{-1.0}$ $0.6\pm
0.4$ $\pm 0.5$ $6.5\pm 2.1$ $\pm 2.3$ $18.2\pm 2.9$ $\pm 5.7$ $0.4\pm 0.1$
$\pm 0.1$ $0.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ ${<}0.1$ 16 $\mathrm{1j}-{20}$ $4.0\pm 1.3$
$\pm 2.8$ ${<}0.1$ $1.2$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+1.3}_{-1.2}$ $1.1$ $\pm$
$0.5^{+1.2}_{-1.1}$ $0.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $7.7\pm 2.5$ $\pm 2.7$ $14.2\pm
2.8$ $\pm 4.3$ $1.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.8\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ ${<}0.1$ 11
$\mathrm{1j}-{21}$ $1.1$ $\pm$ $0.6^{+2.5}_{-1.1}$ ${<}0.1$ $0.2\pm 0.2$ $\pm
0.2$ $0.8$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+1.0}_{-0.8}$ $0.5$ $\pm$ $0.3^{+0.8}_{-0.5}$ $5.8\pm
2.0$ $\pm 2.1$ $8.3\pm 2.1$ $\pm 3.5$ $2.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.3$ $1.5\pm 0.1$ $\pm
0.2$ ${<}0.1$ 7 $\mathrm{1j}-{22}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.7$ $\pm$
$0.4^{+0.7}_{-0.7}$ $0.5\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $2.1\pm 1.2$ $\pm 1.2$ $3.2\pm 1.2$
$\pm 1.4$ $6.2\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.6$ $3.9\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.6$ ${<}0.1$ 4
$\mathrm{1j}-{23}$ $0.3$ $\pm$ $0.3^{+0.8}_{-0.3}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.4\pm
0.3$ $\pm 0.3$ $0.1$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.4}_{-0.1}$ $0.9\pm 0.8$ $\pm 0.8$ $1.6\pm
0.9$ $\pm 1.2$ $1.8\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.5$ $0.5\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.4$ ${<}0.1$ 0

Numbers of expected and observed events in the $\mu\tauh$ channel. The total
background includes the total uncertainty, while for each process the
statistical and systematic uncertainties are quoted separately. The two
numbers that are quoted for the benchmark signal models are the masses of the
parent SUSY particle and the , respectively, in GeV. In the case of the
chargino-neutralino signal models, the first number within parentheses
indicates the common and mass in GeV.  SR label DY+jets WW+jets WW+jets Rest
Jet$\rightarrow\tau_{h}$ Total Bkg (400,1) (400,175) $\PSGt_{L}$(90,1)
Observed $\mathrm{0j}-{1}$ $1.3\pm 0.8$ $\pm 1.2$ $16.2\pm 4.4$ $\pm 14.2$
${<}0.1$ $0.7$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ $0.5$ $\pm$ $0.5^{+1.1}_{-0.5}$
$3.5\pm 1.6$ $\pm 1.7$ $22.2\pm 4.8$ $\pm 14.5$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 7
$\mathrm{0j}-{2}$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+1.4}_{-0.4}$ $23.1\pm 5.8$ $\pm 22.5$
${<}0.2$ $2.0\pm 0.7$ $\pm 1.5$ $1.2$ $\pm$ $0.6^{+1.5}_{-1.2}$ $51.1\pm 5.7$
$\pm 9.6$ $77.7\pm 8.2$ $\pm 24.5$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 81
$\mathrm{0j}-{3}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.3\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.3$ $0.2$ $\pm$
$0.2^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$ ${<}0.1$ $1.5\pm 1.0$ $\pm 1.0$ $2.0\pm 1.1$ $\pm 1.2$
${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 2 $\mathrm{0j}-{4}$ $0.7$ $\pm$ $0.5^{+1.0}_{-0.7}$
$208.3\pm 15.7$ $\pm 27.2$ $0.1$ $\pm$ $0.1^{+0.5}_{-0.1}$ $1.2\pm 0.5$ $\pm
0.8$ $2.6\pm 1.1$ $\pm 2.2$ $76.1\pm 9.6$ $\pm 14.9$ $288.9\pm 18.5$ $\pm
31.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.8}_{-0.4}$ 279 $\mathrm{0j}-{5}$
$12.3\pm 2.4$ $\pm 5.0$ $3.3\pm 1.6$ $\pm 3.2$ $7.3\pm 1.2$ $\pm 3.3$ $26.3\pm
2.5$ $\pm 7.6$ $2.6$ $\pm$ $1.7^{+4.1}_{-2.6}$ $125.5\pm 9.3$ $\pm 21.0$
$177.4\pm 10.2$ $\pm 23.7$ $0.4\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.6\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.4$
$\pm$ $0.4^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$ 197 $\mathrm{0j}-{6}$ $4.1\pm 1.3$ $\pm 3.4$
$15.5\pm 4.1$ $\pm 10.8$ $6.0\pm 1.1$ $\pm 2.7$ $25.8\pm 2.5$ $\pm 9.5$ $1.1$
$\pm$ $0.3^{+1.3}_{-1.1}$ $372.0\pm 15.2$ $\pm 57.8$ $424.5\pm 16.0$ $\pm
59.8$ $0.2\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $0.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $0.7$ $\pm$
$0.5^{+1.8}_{-0.7}$ 469 $\mathrm{0j}-{7}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.7$
${<}0.1$ $2.2\pm 1.1$ $\pm 1.1$ $2.2\pm 1.1$ $\pm 1.3$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$
${<}0.1$ 3 $\mathrm{0j}-{8}$ $0.7$ $\pm$ $0.5^{+1.0}_{-0.7}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.2$
$0.5\pm 0.3$ $\pm 0.5$ ${<}0.1$ $3.4\pm 1.6$ $\pm 1.6$ $4.7\pm 1.7$ $\pm 2.0$
${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 10 $\mathrm{0j}-{9}$ $35.3\pm 3.7$ $\pm 10.4$
$133.9\pm 11.9$ $\pm 23.8$ $16.0\pm 1.7$ $\pm 4.6$ $61.8\pm 3.7$ $\pm 17.7$
$5.3\pm 1.3$ $\pm 2.3$ $531.1\pm 19.4$ $\pm 82.0$ $783.4\pm 23.4$ $\pm 88.0$
$1.2\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.8\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $8.7\pm 1.8$ $\pm 2.3$ 739
$\mathrm{0j}-{10}$ $1.6$ $\pm$ $1.0^{+1.7}_{-1.6}$ ${<}0.1$ $2.2$ $\pm$
$0.8^{+2.3}_{-2.2}$ $6.3\pm 1.3$ $\pm 2.9$ $0.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.3$ $27.0\pm
4.4$ $\pm 6.0$ $37.5\pm 4.7$ $\pm 7.3$ $0.2\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $0.1\pm 0.1$
$\pm 0.1$ $0.1$ $\pm$ $0.1^{+0.4}_{-0.1}$ 31 $\mathrm{0j}-{11}$ $26.8\pm 3.4$
$\pm 5.1$ $1.0$ $\pm$ $0.7^{+1.1}_{-1.0}$ $13.0\pm 1.7$ $\pm 4.1$ $40.4\pm
3.1$ $\pm 11.9$ $1.6\pm 0.3$ $\pm 0.6$ $305.0\pm 14.3$ $\pm 47.9$ $387.8\pm
15.1$ $\pm 49.8$ $0.8\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.7\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $2.5\pm 1.0$
$\pm 1.2$ 383 $\mathrm{0j}-{12}$ $3.9\pm 1.4$ $\pm 2.6$ ${<}0.1$ $1.8\pm 0.6$
$\pm 1.4$ $6.3\pm 1.3$ $\pm 2.4$ $1.2\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.5$ $38.7\pm 4.9$ $\pm
7.6$ $52.0\pm 5.3$ $\pm 8.5$ $1.2\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.2$ $1.2\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.3$
$0.4$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$ 56 $\mathrm{0j}-{13}$ $0.7$ $\pm$
$0.5^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ ${<}0.1$ $0.3$ $\pm$ $0.2^{+0.5}_{-0.3}$ $0.6\pm 0.3$ $\pm
0.6$ ${<}0.1$ $1.1\pm 0.9$ $\pm 0.9$ $2.7\pm 1.1$ $\pm 1.5$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$
${<}0.1$ 2 $\mathrm{0j}-{14}$ $16.1\pm 2.5$ $\pm 6.5$ $11.6\pm 3.8$ $\pm 5.3$
$7.7\pm 1.2$ $\pm 2.5$ $16.2\pm 1.8$ $\pm 5.0$ $1.2\pm 0.5$ $\pm 0.6$ $40.0\pm
5.2$ $\pm 8.0$ $92.8\pm 7.3$ $\pm 12.9$ $0.7\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ ${<}0.4$
$5.1\pm 1.4$ $\pm 1.9$ 75 $\mathrm{0j}-{15}$ $2.3\pm 0.9$ $\pm 1.1$ ${<}0.1$
$1.1\pm 0.5$ $\pm 0.7$ $1.5\pm 0.6$ $\pm 1.2$ ${<}0.1$ $9.8\pm 2.7$ $\pm 3.1$
$14.7\pm 3.0$ $\pm 3.5$ ${<}0.2$ ${<}0.2$ $0.8\pm 0.5$ $\pm 0.6$ 15
$\mathrm{0j}-{16}$ $3.3\pm 1.1$ $\pm 1.2$ ${<}0.1$ $2.0\pm 0.6$ $\pm 1.0$
$2.7\pm 0.8$ $\pm 1.9$ ${<}0.1$ $11.6\pm 3.0$ $\pm 3.5$ $19.6\pm 3.3$ $\pm
4.2$ $0.2\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.7\pm 0.5$ $\pm 0.7$ 26
$\mathrm{0j}-{17}$ $0.7$ $\pm$ $0.5^{+1.3}_{-0.7}$ ${<}0.1$ $1.3\pm 0.5$ $\pm
0.8$ $1.3\pm 0.5$ $\pm 0.8$ ${<}0.1$ $2.0\pm 1.3$ $\pm 1.4$ $5.4\pm 1.6$ $\pm
2.2$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.5$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ 6 $\mathrm{0j}-{18}$
$0.7\pm 0.5$ $\pm 0.6$ ${<}0.1$ $0.3\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.3$ $1.9\pm 0.6$ $\pm 1.5$
$0.4\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $12.9\pm 3.0$ $\pm 3.5$ $16.2\pm 3.1$ $\pm 3.9$ $0.6\pm
0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $0.4\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.3$ $\pm$ $0.3^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ 16
$\mathrm{0j}-{19}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $2.0\pm 0.7$ $\pm 0.9$ $0.5\pm
0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $9.4\pm 2.5$ $\pm 2.8$ $11.9\pm 2.6$ $\pm 3.0$ $1.3\pm 0.2$
$\pm 0.2$ $1.1\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ ${<}0.1$ 13 $\mathrm{0j}-{20}$ ${<}0.1$
${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $1.6\pm 0.7$ $\pm 0.9$ $0.8\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.3$ $5.8\pm 1.8$
$\pm 2.0$ $8.2\pm 2.0$ $\pm 2.3$ $4.1\pm 0.3$ $\pm 0.4$ $2.0\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.3$
${<}0.1$ 10 $\mathrm{0j}-{21}$ $0.8$ $\pm$ $0.5^{+1.3}_{-0.8}$ ${<}0.1$
$1.1\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.6$ $1.9\pm 0.7$ $\pm 1.0$ ${<}0.1$ $2.3\pm 1.2$ $\pm 1.3$
$6.1\pm 1.6$ $\pm 2.2$ $1.0\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ ${<}0.2$ $1.6\pm 0.8$ $\pm 1.0$
4 $\mathrm{1j}-{1}$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.5}_{-0.4}$ $3.0$ $\pm$
$1.4^{+3.1}_{-3.0}$ ${<}0.1$ $0.2$ $\pm$ $0.2^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$
$0.0^{+0.0}_{-0.0}$ $\pm 0.6$ $6.7\pm 2.1$ $\pm 2.3$ $10.3\pm 2.6$ $\pm 4.0$
${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 6 $\mathrm{1j}-{2}$ $1.8$ $\pm$ $0.9^{+1.9}_{-1.8}$
$28.0\pm 3.9$ $\pm 9.3$ $0.7$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.9}_{-0.7}$ $1.4\pm 0.6$ $\pm 0.8$
$0.8^{+0.9}_{-0.8}$ $\pm 1.0$ $35.6\pm 5.0$ $\pm 7.3$ $68.2\pm 6.5$ $\pm 12.1$
${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 70 $\mathrm{1j}-{3}$ $9.0\pm 2.1$ $\pm 5.1$
$35.7\pm 4.4$ $\pm 8.1$ $3.2\pm 0.9$ $\pm 2.6$ $2.3\pm 0.7$ $\pm 1.8$ $3.4\pm
2.1$ $\pm 3.4$ $77.0\pm 7.0$ $\pm 13.5$ $130.5\pm 8.8$ $\pm 17.2$ ${<}0.2$
${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 143 $\mathrm{1j}-{4}$ $0.7$ $\pm$ $0.5^{+2.2}_{-0.7}$
$7.9\pm 1.9$ $\pm 4.9$ $0.8\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.6$ $0.6\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.6$ $0.5$
$\pm$ $0.4^{+0.8}_{-0.5}$ $7.5\pm 2.2$ $\pm 2.5$ $18.1\pm 3.0$ $\pm 6.0$
${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 20 $\mathrm{1j}-{5}$ $5.9\pm 1.6$ $\pm 2.3$
$86.1\pm 8.9$ $\pm 18.4$ $0.9$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+1.9}_{-0.9}$ $1.6\pm 0.6$ $\pm
1.4$ $1.2$ $\pm$ $0.6^{+1.4}_{-1.2}$ $67.0\pm 8.3$ $\pm 13.0$ $162.6\pm 12.3$
$\pm 22.8$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 164 $\mathrm{1j}-{6}$ $44.8\pm 4.3$ $\pm
9.5$ $9.3\pm 2.3$ $\pm 4.8$ $15.8\pm 1.8$ $\pm 5.5$ $19.9\pm 2.2$ $\pm 6.3$
$1.9$ $\pm$ $0.7^{+1.9}_{-1.9}$ $197.5\pm 11.9$ $\pm 31.9$ $289.2\pm 13.2$
$\pm 34.7$ $0.7\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.9\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ ${<}0.1$ 283
$\mathrm{1j}-{7}$ $31.7\pm 3.7$ $\pm 7.2$ $31.4\pm 3.8$ $\pm 6.7$ $10.5\pm
1.5$ $\pm 3.8$ $10.2\pm 1.6$ $\pm 5.4$ $2.0\pm 0.7$ $\pm 1.4$ $201.1\pm 11.5$
$\pm 32.3$ $286.9\pm 12.9$ $\pm 34.4$ $0.5\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $0.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm
0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 292 $\mathrm{1j}-{8}$ $1.8\pm 0.8$ $\pm 1.4$ $2.3$ $\pm$
$1.7^{+2.9}_{-2.3}$ $1.3\pm 0.5$ $\pm 0.8$ $1.2$ $\pm$ $0.6^{+1.9}_{-1.2}$
$3.3\pm 3.0$ $\pm 3.0$ $7.6\pm 2.2$ $\pm 2.4$ $17.4\pm 4.2$ $\pm 5.5$ $0.6\pm
0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 26 $\mathrm{1j}-{9}$ $5.2$
$\pm$ $1.6^{+6.1}_{-5.2}$ $0.5$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.9}_{-0.5}$ $0.9\pm 0.4$ $\pm
0.8$ $0.9$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.9}_{-0.9}$ $0.1$ $\pm$ $0.1^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ $3.0\pm
1.7$ $\pm 1.7$ $10.5\pm 2.5$ $\pm 6.5$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 13
$\mathrm{1j}-{10}$ $13.2\pm 2.6$ $\pm 3.6$ ${<}0.1$ $2.0\pm 0.7$ $\pm 1.5$
$1.6$ $\pm$ $0.6^{+3.1}_{-1.6}$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.2^{+0.8}_{-0.4}$ $18.8\pm 3.9$
$\pm 4.8$ $36.0\pm 4.8$ $\pm 7.0$ $0.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $0.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm
0.2$ ${<}0.1$ 34 $\mathrm{1j}-{11}$ $86.2\pm 6.1$ $\pm 24.6$ $2.3\pm 1.0$ $\pm
1.4$ $29.7\pm 2.5$ $\pm 10.4$ $28.5\pm 2.6$ $\pm 9.7$ $2.5\pm 0.6$ $\pm 1.1$
$178.0\pm 11.6$ $\pm 29.1$ $327.2\pm 13.6$ $\pm 40.7$ $1.9\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.3$
$1.9\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.3$ $1.3\pm 0.7$ $\pm 0.8$ 296 $\mathrm{1j}-{12}$ $15.4\pm
2.8$ $\pm 4.5$ ${<}0.1$ $5.4\pm 1.1$ $\pm 3.1$ $6.0\pm 1.2$ $\pm 2.6$ $1.2\pm
0.3$ $\pm 0.4$ $39.6\pm 5.1$ $\pm 7.8$ $67.6\pm 6.0$ $\pm 9.9$ $2.5\pm 0.2$
$\pm 0.3$ $3.0\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.4$ ${<}0.1$ 46 $\mathrm{1j}-{13}$ ${<}0.8$
${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$ ${<}0.1$ $0.6^{+0.6}_{-0.6}$
$\pm 0.6$ $1.0\pm 0.7$ $\pm 1.1$ $0.8\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$
${<}0.1$ 0 $\mathrm{1j}-{14}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.2$ $\pm$
$0.2^{+1.5}_{-0.2}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.2\pm 0.2$ $\pm 1.5$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$
${<}0.1$ 1 $\mathrm{1j}-{15}$ $5.0\pm 1.5$ $\pm 2.6$ $0.5\pm 0.5$ $\pm 0.5$
$1.7\pm 0.6$ $\pm 1.0$ $1.8\pm 0.7$ $\pm 1.4$ ${<}0.1$ $0.6^{+1.0}_{-0.6}$
$\pm 1.0$ $9.5\pm 2.1$ $\pm 3.3$ ${<}0.2$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 10
$\mathrm{1j}-{16}$ $81.0\pm 5.6$ $\pm 30.0$ $25.2\pm 3.6$ $\pm 7.8$ $22.0\pm
2.0$ $\pm 7.9$ $34.5\pm 2.7$ $\pm 14.8$ $5.9\pm 1.3$ $\pm 1.9$ $86.3\pm 8.5$
$\pm 15.5$ $255.0\pm 11.4$ $\pm 38.5$ $4.4\pm 0.3$ $\pm 0.6$ $2.3\pm 0.2$ $\pm
0.3$ $3.6\pm 1.3$ $\pm 1.6$ 254 $\mathrm{1j}-{17}$ $10.2\pm 2.0$ $\pm 6.8$
${<}0.1$ $3.7\pm 0.9$ $\pm 1.5$ $3.6\pm 0.9$ $\pm 1.5$ $0.1$ $\pm$
$0.0^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ $8.4\pm 2.9$ $\pm 3.2$ $25.9\pm 3.8$ $\pm 7.9$ $0.9\pm
0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.4\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ ${<}0.1$ 23 $\mathrm{1j}-{18}$ $26.8\pm
3.6$ $\pm 6.3$ ${<}0.1$ $6.3\pm 1.1$ $\pm 2.6$ $4.3\pm 1.0$ $\pm 2.5$ $0.5\pm
0.2$ $\pm 0.2$ $9.0\pm 3.0$ $\pm 3.3$ $46.9\pm 4.9$ $\pm 8.0$ $0.8\pm 0.1$
$\pm 0.2$ $0.6\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 46 $\mathrm{1j}-{19}$ $9.3\pm 1.9$
$\pm 7.9$ $1.1$ $\pm$ $0.8^{+1.7}_{-1.1}$ $3.6\pm 0.9$ $\pm 1.5$ $5.7\pm 1.2$
$\pm 2.5$ $0.2\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $13.1\pm 3.0$ $\pm 3.6$ $32.9\pm 4.0$ $\pm
9.3$ $0.7\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $0.4\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 30
$\mathrm{1j}-{20}$ $9.9\pm 2.2$ $\pm 4.7$ ${<}0.1$ $1.1\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.9$
$1.8\pm 0.6$ $\pm 1.1$ $0.4\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $12.6\pm 3.0$ $\pm 3.5$ $25.7\pm
3.8$ $\pm 6.1$ $2.0\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.3$ $1.1\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ $0.1$ $\pm$
$0.1^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ 18 $\mathrm{1j}-{21}$ $0.0$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.4}_{-0.0}$
${<}0.1$ $0.0$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.4}_{-0.0}$ $1.2\pm 0.5$ $\pm 0.9$ ${<}0.2$
$5.2\pm 1.9$ $\pm 2.0$ $6.7\pm 2.0$ $\pm 2.3$ $3.6\pm 0.3$ $\pm 0.6$ $1.9\pm
0.2$ $\pm 0.3$ ${<}0.1$ 6 $\mathrm{1j}-{22}$ $0.7$ $\pm$ $0.7^{+1.9}_{-0.7}$
${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.7\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.7$ $0.4\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.3$ $2.5\pm 1.3$
$\pm 1.4$ $4.4\pm 1.6$ $\pm 2.5$ $8.7\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.8$ $4.4\pm 0.3$ $\pm 0.5$
${<}0.1$ 6 $\mathrm{1j}-{23}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.5$ $\pm$
$0.3^{+0.7}_{-0.5}$ ${<}0.1$ $0.9\pm 0.8$ $\pm 0.8$ $1.5\pm 0.9$ $\pm 1.1$
$2.7\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.3$ $0.9\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ ${<}0.1$ 1

Numbers of expected and observed events in the $\Pe\mu$ channel. The total
background includes the total uncertainty, while for each process the
statistical and systematic uncertainties are quoted separately. The two
numbers that are quoted for the benchmark signal models are the masses of the
parent SUSY particle and the , respectively, in GeV. In the case of the
chargino-neutralino signal models, the first number within parentheses
indicates the common and mass in GeV.  SR label DY+jets WW+jets WW+jets Rest
QCD Total Bkg (400,1) (400,175) $\PSGt_{L}$(90,1) Observed $\mathrm{0j}-{1}$
$2.5\pm 1.0$ $\pm 1.6$ ${<}0.1$ $0.6\pm 0.3$ $\pm 0.4$ $0.6$ $\pm$
$0.4^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$ $0.1\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $3.9\pm 1.1$ $\pm 1.8$
${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 3 $\mathrm{0j}-{2}$ $40.0\pm 3.8$ $\pm 12.9$
$155.4\pm 13.5$ $\pm 20.7$ $21.1\pm 1.9$ $\pm 6.0$ $248.7\pm 7.1$ $\pm 64.4$
$37.3\pm 11.6$ $\pm 22.4$ $35.0\pm 16.2$ $\pm 23.8$ $537.5\pm 25.4$ $\pm 76.4$
${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+2.5}_{-0.4}$ 584 $\mathrm{0j}-{3}$
$21.3\pm 2.8$ $\pm 7.1$ ${<}0.1$ $9.9\pm 1.3$ $\pm 3.8$ $47.2\pm 3.1$ $\pm
13.3$ $1.6^{+1.6}_{-1.6}$ $\pm 3.9$ $4.3^{+5.1}_{-4.3}$ $\pm 5.5$ $84.2\pm
6.9$ $\pm 16.9$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.1$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.8}_{-0.1}$ 105
$\mathrm{0j}-{4}$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.8}_{-0.4}$ ${<}0.1$ $0.2$ $\pm$
$0.2^{+0.6}_{-0.2}$ $0.6\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.6$ $0.0^{+0.0}_{-0.0}$ $\pm 2.3$
${<}0.1$ $1.2\pm 0.6$ $\pm 2.5$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 2 $\mathrm{0j}-{5}$
$5.7\pm 1.4$ $\pm 2.8$ $2.4\pm 1.5$ $\pm 1.6$ $2.9\pm 0.7$ $\pm 1.2$ $7.1\pm
1.2$ $\pm 2.2$ $1.8$ $\pm$ $1.5^{+2.4}_{-1.8}$ ${<}0.1$ $20.0\pm 2.9$ $\pm
4.8$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.2$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+1.2}_{-0.2}$ 21 $\mathrm{0j}-{6}$
$105.3\pm 6.2$ $\pm 33.2$ ${<}0.1$ $66.2\pm 3.4$ $\pm 18.8$ $302.9\pm 7.8$
$\pm 79.8$ $16.1\pm 5.6$ $\pm 10.7$ $22.6\pm 11.2$ $\pm 15.9$ $513.1\pm 16.4$
$\pm 90.6$ $0.2$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.6}_{-0.2}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 531
$\mathrm{0j}-{7}$ $82.9\pm 5.5$ $\pm 29.4$ $1.4$ $\pm$ $1.4^{+1.5}_{-1.4}$
$46.0\pm 2.8$ $\pm 13.1$ $424.6\pm 9.3$ $\pm 110.0$ $19.9\pm 6.2$ $\pm 16.1$
$19.6\pm 13.8$ $\pm 16.9$ $594.4\pm 18.8$ $\pm 116.9$ $0.1$ $\pm$
$0.0^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ ${<}0.1$ $0.3$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+1.8}_{-0.3}$ 618
$\mathrm{0j}-{8}$ $2.6$ $\pm$ $0.9^{+2.9}_{-2.6}$ ${<}0.1$ $0.6\pm 0.3$ $\pm
0.6$ $1.9\pm 0.6$ $\pm 1.5$ $0.1$ $\pm$ $0.1^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ ${<}0.1$ $5.3\pm
1.1$ $\pm 3.4$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 7 $\mathrm{0j}-{9}$ $4.9\pm 1.3$
$\pm 1.9$ ${<}0.1$ $1.6\pm 0.5$ $\pm 0.8$ $1.7\pm 0.6$ $\pm 1.4$ $0.4$ $\pm$
$0.3^{+0.7}_{-0.4}$ ${<}0.1$ $8.6\pm 1.5$ $\pm 2.6$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$
12 $\mathrm{0j}-{10}$ $119.2\pm 6.5$ $\pm 33.4$ $28.3\pm 5.9$ $\pm 8.0$
$49.7\pm 2.9$ $\pm 13.2$ $123.9\pm 5.0$ $\pm 36.1$ $10.2\pm 3.9$ $\pm 8.8$
$13.0\pm 10.3$ $\pm 12.2$ $344.2\pm 15.2$ $\pm 53.7$ $0.2$ $\pm$
$0.0^{+0.6}_{-0.2}$ ${<}0.4$ $0.9$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+6.1}_{-0.9}$ 324
$\mathrm{0j}-{11}$ $17.0\pm 2.5$ $\pm 6.6$ ${<}0.1$ $10.5\pm 1.3$ $\pm 3.4$
$21.4\pm 2.1$ $\pm 6.3$ $1.6$ $\pm$ $1.0^{+3.3}_{-1.6}$ ${<}0.1$ $50.7\pm 3.6$
$\pm 10.3$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 50 $\mathrm{0j}-{12}$ $129.0\pm 6.8$
$\pm 36.9$ $0.5\pm 0.5$ $\pm 0.5$ $61.3\pm 3.2$ $\pm 16.5$ $224.7\pm 6.7$ $\pm
58.9$ $8.2\pm 3.2$ $\pm 3.4$ $11.6\pm 7.9$ $\pm 9.8$ $435.3\pm 13.2$ $\pm
72.2$ $0.2$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.6}_{-0.2}$ ${<}0.2$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+2.4}_{-0.4}$
457 $\mathrm{0j}-{13}$ $27.9\pm 3.2$ $\pm 8.8$ ${<}0.1$ $10.7\pm 1.3$ $\pm
3.7$ $29.2\pm 2.4$ $\pm 8.9$ $1.0$ $\pm$ $0.2^{+1.5}_{-1.0}$ ${<}0.1$ $68.8\pm
4.2$ $\pm 13.1$ $0.2$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.5}_{-0.2}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 77
$\mathrm{0j}-{14}$ $4.6\pm 1.2$ $\pm 2.1$ ${<}0.1$ $1.3\pm 0.5$ $\pm 1.1$
$1.8\pm 0.6$ $\pm 1.0$ $0.3$ $\pm$ $0.3^{+0.5}_{-0.3}$ ${<}0.1$ $8.1\pm 1.5$
$\pm 2.6$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 9 $\mathrm{0j}-{15}$ $40.2\pm 3.7$ $\pm
12.7$ $4.8\pm 2.3$ $\pm 2.4$ $14.3\pm 1.5$ $\pm 4.0$ $27.8\pm 2.3$ $\pm 7.6$
$2.8\pm 1.4$ $\pm 1.9$ $0.7^{+4.1}_{-0.7}$ $\pm 4.2$ $90.5\pm 6.8$ $\pm 16.2$
$0.2$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.5}_{-0.2}$ ${<}0.1$ $0.2$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+1.6}_{-0.2}$ 82
$\mathrm{0j}-{16}$ $18.0\pm 2.5$ $\pm 5.6$ ${<}0.1$ $8.1\pm 1.2$ $\pm 2.8$
$11.4\pm 1.5$ $\pm 3.4$ ${<}0.1$ $2.9^{+3.4}_{-2.9}$ $\pm 3.7$ $40.5\pm 4.7$
$\pm 8.1$ $0.1$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 51
$\mathrm{0j}-{17}$ $30.5\pm 3.2$ $\pm 10.4$ ${<}0.1$ $13.5\pm 1.5$ $\pm 4.0$
$15.2\pm 1.7$ $\pm 4.9$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $59.3\pm 4.0$ $\pm 12.2$ $0.1$ $\pm$
$0.0^{+0.3}_{-0.1}$ ${<}0.2$ ${<}0.1$ 61 $\mathrm{0j}-{18}$ $9.0\pm 1.8$ $\pm
3.7$ ${<}0.1$ $2.2\pm 0.6$ $\pm 1.0$ $1.1$ $\pm$ $0.5^{+1.2}_{-1.1}$ $0.2\pm
0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $1.9^{+1.9}_{-1.9}$ $\pm 2.1$ $14.5\pm 2.7$ $\pm 4.5$ ${<}0.1$
${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 11 $\mathrm{0j}-{19}$ $10.5\pm 1.9$ $\pm 3.7$ ${<}0.1$
$5.1\pm 0.9$ $\pm 1.7$ $8.7\pm 1.3$ $\pm 3.2$ $0.6\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.5$
$0.7^{+2.0}_{-0.7}$ $\pm 2.0$ $25.6\pm 3.2$ $\pm 5.5$ $0.1$ $\pm$
$0.0^{+0.3}_{-0.1}$ ${<}0.2$ ${<}0.1$ 30 $\mathrm{0j}-{20}$ $1.4\pm 0.7$ $\pm
1.0$ ${<}0.1$ $0.5\pm 0.3$ $\pm 0.5$ $2.8\pm 0.8$ $\pm 1.3$ $0.2\pm 0.1$ $\pm
0.2$ ${<}0.1$ $4.9\pm 1.1$ $\pm 1.7$ $0.1$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.3}_{-0.1}$ ${<}0.1$
${<}0.1$ 5 $\mathrm{0j}-{21}$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.4^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$ ${<}0.1$
${<}0.4$ $3.5\pm 0.8$ $\pm 1.4$ $0.2\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $1.6^{+1.9}_{-1.6}$
$\pm 2.1$ $5.6\pm 2.1$ $\pm 2.6$ $0.3$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.6}_{-0.3}$ ${<}0.1$
${<}0.1$ 4 $\mathrm{0j}-{22}$ $2.4\pm 0.9$ $\pm 1.3$ ${<}0.1$ $0.7\pm 0.3$
$\pm 0.5$ $0.9\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.5$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $4.1\pm 1.0$ $\pm 1.4$
${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 2 $\mathrm{1j}-{1}$ $1.0$ $\pm$ $0.6^{+1.1}_{-1.0}$
${<}0.1$ $0.2$ $\pm$ $0.2^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $0.2$ $\pm$ $0.2^{+0.8}_{-0.2}$ $1.6$
$\pm$ $1.4^{+2.8}_{-1.6}$ $3.6\pm 2.7$ $\pm 3.3$ $6.5\pm 3.2$ $\pm 4.5$
${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 2 $\mathrm{1j}-{2}$ $20.2\pm 2.7$ $\pm 7.6$
${<}0.1$ $6.3\pm 1.0$ $\pm 2.4$ $10.1\pm 1.4$ $\pm 3.1$ $1.8\pm 0.5$ $\pm 1.0$
$0.3^{+5.3}_{-0.3}$ $\pm 5.3$ $38.6\pm 6.2$ $\pm 10.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$
${<}0.1$ 43 $\mathrm{1j}-{3}$ $138.1\pm 7.0$ $\pm 40.1$ $50.5\pm 6.2$ $\pm
10.4$ $52.3\pm 3.0$ $\pm 15.0$ $114.1\pm 4.8$ $\pm 29.6$ $23.0\pm 7.0$ $\pm
10.5$ ${<}0.1$ $378.0\pm 13.0$ $\pm 54.1$ $0.0$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.2}_{-0.0}$
$0.2\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ $0.2$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+1.1}_{-0.2}$ 382 $\mathrm{1j}-{4}$
$121.1\pm 6.6$ $\pm 36.9$ $1.2\pm 0.7$ $\pm 0.8$ $48.0\pm 2.9$ $\pm 13.8$
$59.4\pm 3.5$ $\pm 16.6$ $5.7\pm 2.0$ $\pm 4.2$ ${<}0.1$ $235.3\pm 8.3$ $\pm
43.0$ ${<}0.1$ $0.1\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 211 $\mathrm{1j}-{5}$ $6.6\pm
1.5$ $\pm 3.3$ $0.5$ $\pm$ $0.5^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ $2.2\pm 0.6$ $\pm 1.0$ $5.3\pm
1.0$ $\pm 2.4$ $0.7\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.7$ $6.6\pm 4.2$ $\pm 5.3$ $22.0\pm 4.7$
$\pm 6.8$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 20 $\mathrm{1j}-{6}$ $49.3\pm 4.2$ $\pm
15.3$ $3.2\pm 1.8$ $\pm 1.9$ $9.7\pm 1.3$ $\pm 3.3$ $15.9\pm 1.8$ $\pm 4.8$
$2.8$ $\pm$ $1.1^{+5.0}_{-2.8}$ ${<}0.1$ $80.8\pm 5.2$ $\pm 17.3$ ${<}0.1$
${<}0.1$ $0.0$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.2}_{-0.0}$ 54 $\mathrm{1j}-{7}$ $266.9\pm 9.8$
$\pm 79.3$ $0.5\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.4$ $86.1\pm 3.8$ $\pm 23.4$ $165.0\pm 5.8$ $\pm
42.5$ $14.2\pm 4.5$ $\pm 6.5$ $17.7\pm 11.7$ $\pm 14.6$ $550.3\pm 17.3$ $\pm
94.3$ $0.3$ $\pm$ $0.1^{+0.7}_{-0.3}$ ${<}0.3$ $0.1$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.7}_{-0.1}$
511 $\mathrm{1j}-{8}$ $35.9\pm 3.6$ $\pm 11.5$ ${<}0.1$ $6.4\pm 1.0$ $\pm 3.0$
$9.4\pm 1.4$ $\pm 3.0$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $51.7\pm 4.0$ $\pm 12.3$ $0.1$ $\pm$
$0.0^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 62 $\mathrm{1j}-{9}$ $31.5\pm 3.3$ $\pm
10.5$ ${<}0.1$ $7.1\pm 1.1$ $\pm 2.9$ $9.9\pm 1.4$ $\pm 3.1$ $0.6\pm 0.5$ $\pm
0.6$ $2.0^{+2.8}_{-2.0}$ $\pm 3.0$ $51.1\pm 4.8$ $\pm 11.8$ $0.0$ $\pm$
$0.0^{+0.2}_{-0.0}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 40 $\mathrm{1j}-{10}$ $68.1\pm 4.9$ $\pm
21.3$ $0.4\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.4$ $20.7\pm 1.9$ $\pm 5.9$ $14.1\pm 1.7$ $\pm 4.1$
$1.4^{+1.8}_{-1.4}$ $\pm 2.7$ ${<}0.1$ $104.8\pm 5.8$ $\pm 22.7$ $0.2$ $\pm$
$0.0^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 88 $\mathrm{1j}-{11}$ $93.2\pm 5.8$ $\pm
30.3$ ${<}0.1$ $28.8\pm 2.2$ $\pm 9.0$ $25.8\pm 2.3$ $\pm 7.4$ $1.7\pm 0.7$
$\pm 1.7$ ${<}0.1$ $149.5\pm 6.6$ $\pm 32.5$ $0.4$ $\pm$ $0.1^{+1.0}_{-0.4}$
$0.4\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 122 $\mathrm{1j}-{12}$ ${<}0.4$ ${<}0.1$
${<}0.1$ $0.4\pm 0.3$ $\pm 0.4$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $0.5\pm 0.3$ $\pm 0.6$
${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 0 $\mathrm{1j}-{13}$ $2.6\pm 0.9$ $\pm 1.2$
${<}0.1$ $1.1\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.5$ $1.5\pm 0.6$ $\pm 0.8$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$
$5.4\pm 1.2$ $\pm 1.6$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 1 $\mathrm{1j}-{14}$
$23.7\pm 2.8$ $\pm 7.0$ ${<}0.1$ $6.1\pm 1.0$ $\pm 2.0$ $6.4\pm 1.1$ $\pm 2.1$
$0.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.3$ $2.8$ $\pm$ $2.8^{+3.1}_{-2.8}$ $39.4\pm 4.2$ $\pm 8.2$
$0.1$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.3}_{-0.1}$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 30 $\mathrm{1j}-{15}$
$250.0\pm 9.2$ $\pm 73.0$ $6.4\pm 1.8$ $\pm 3.1$ $48.0\pm 2.8$ $\pm 12.8$
$81.0\pm 4.0$ $\pm 21.2$ $10.6\pm 2.4$ $\pm 7.9$ $3.9^{+7.1}_{-3.9}$ $\pm 7.3$
$399.8\pm 13.0$ $\pm 77.9$ $0.9$ $\pm$ $0.1^{+2.3}_{-0.9}$ $1.0\pm 0.1$ $\pm
0.2$ $0.5$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+3.1}_{-0.5}$ 353 $\mathrm{1j}-{16}$ $74.3\pm 5.0$ $\pm
21.1$ ${<}0.1$ $21.1\pm 1.9$ $\pm 6.1$ $15.9\pm 1.8$ $\pm 4.6$ $1.7\pm 0.7$
$\pm 0.7$ $2.8^{+4.1}_{-2.8}$ $\pm 4.4$ $115.8\pm 7.0$ $\pm 22.9$ $0.3$ $\pm$
$0.0^{+0.6}_{-0.3}$ ${<}0.4$ ${<}0.1$ 93 $\mathrm{1j}-{17}$ $124.7\pm 6.6$
$\pm 35.9$ ${<}0.1$ $27.0\pm 2.1$ $\pm 7.5$ $23.3\pm 2.2$ $\pm 6.8$ $1.2\pm
0.3$ $\pm 0.4$ $2.0^{+5.7}_{-2.0}$ $\pm 5.8$ $178.2\pm 9.2$ $\pm 37.7$ $0.3$
$\pm$ $0.0^{+0.7}_{-0.3}$ $0.3\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 158
$\mathrm{1j}-{18}$ $60.7\pm 4.6$ $\pm 17.8$ ${<}0.1$ $9.1\pm 1.2$ $\pm 2.8$
$11.8\pm 1.5$ $\pm 3.6$ $1.1\pm 0.4$ $\pm 0.5$ $2.8^{+3.6}_{-2.8}$ $\pm 3.9$
$85.5\pm 6.2$ $\pm 18.8$ $0.1$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.3}_{-0.1}$ $0.2\pm 0.1$ $\pm
0.1$ ${<}0.1$ 70 $\mathrm{1j}-{19}$ $39.4\pm 3.6$ $\pm 12.2$ ${<}0.1$ $8.8\pm
1.2$ $\pm 3.0$ $10.0\pm 1.4$ $\pm 3.6$ ${<}3.6$ $1.3^{+2.9}_{-1.3}$ $\pm 3.0$
$59.7\pm 5.0$ $\pm 13.9$ $0.3$ $\pm$ $0.0^{+0.7}_{-0.3}$ ${<}0.4$ ${<}0.1$ 57
$\mathrm{1j}-{20}$ $5.2\pm 1.3$ $\pm 3.3$ ${<}0.1$ $1.6\pm 0.5$ $\pm 0.7$
$2.6\pm 0.7$ $\pm 1.2$ $0.4\pm 0.1$ $\pm 0.2$ ${<}0.1$ $9.8\pm 1.6$ $\pm 3.6$
$0.3$ $\pm$ $0.1^{+0.8}_{-0.3}$ ${<}0.2$ ${<}0.1$ 5 $\mathrm{1j}-{21}$ $0.7$
$\pm$ $0.5^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ ${<}0.1$ $0.2\pm 0.2$ $\pm 0.2$ $2.6\pm 0.7$ $\pm
1.0$ ${<}0.1$ ${<}0.1$ $3.6\pm 0.9$ $\pm 1.3$ $0.6$ $\pm$ $0.1^{+1.5}_{-0.6}$