text:
\section{Introduction}

Leptoquarks (LQ) are hypothetical particles that carry both lepton (L) and baryon (B) quantum numbers. They appear in theories beyond the standard model (SM), such as grand unification~\cite{PatiSalam,GeorgiGlashow,TOPSU(5)Model}, technicolor~\cite{Technicolor}, and compositeness~\cite{LightLeptoquarks,Gripaios:2009dq} models.
A minimal extension of the SM to include all renormalizable gauge invariant interactions, while respecting existing bounds from low-energy and precision measurements leads to the effective Buchm\"{u}ller--R\"{u}ckl--Wyler model~\cite{Buchmuller1987442}.
In this model, LQs are assumed to couple to one generation of chiral fermions, and to separately conserve L and B quantum numbers.
An LQ can be either a scalar (spin 0) or a vector (spin 1) particle with a fractional electric charge.
A comprehensive list of other possible quantum number assignments for LQs coupling to SM fermions can be found in Ref.~\cite{LQsearchesAtHeraTevatron}.

This paper presents the first search for a third-generation scalar LQ (\LQt) decaying into a top quark and a $\tau$ lepton.
Previous searches at hadron colliders have targeted LQs decaying into quarks and leptons of the first and second generations~\cite{Aad:2011ch,ATLAS:2012aq,Chatrchyan:2012vza} or
the third-generation in the $\LQt \to \PQb \nu$ and $\LQt \to \PQb \tau$ decay channels~\cite{PhysRevLett.99.061801,PhysRevD.77.091105,ATLAS:2013oea,Chatrchyan:2012st,Khachatryan:2014ura,Khachatryan:2015wza}.
The presented search for third-generation LQs can also be interpreted in the context of R-parity violating (RPV) supersymmetric models~\cite{Barbier:2004ez}
where the supersymmetric partner of the bottom quark (bottom squark) decays into a top quark and a $\tau$ lepton via the RPV coupling $\lambda^{\prime}_{333}$.

At hadron colliders, such as the CERN LHC, LQs are mainly pair produced through the quantum chromodynamic (QCD) quark-antiquark annihilation and gluon-gluon fusion sub\-pro\-ces\-ses.
There is also a lepton mediated $t$($u$)-channel contribution that depends on the unknown lepton-quark-LQ Yukawa coupling, but this contribution is suppressed at the LHC for the production of third-generation LQs as it requires third-generation quarks in the initial state.
Hence, the LQ pair production cross section depends only upon the assumed values of the LQ spin and mass, and upon the proton-proton center-of-mass energy.
We consider scalar LQs in the mass range up to several hundred \GeVns{}.
The corresponding next-to-leading-order (NLO) pair production cross sections and associated uncertainties at $\sqrt{s}=8$\TeV are taken from the calculation presented in Ref.~\cite{Kramer}.

It is customary to denote the branching fractions of LQs into a quark and a charged lepton or a quark and a neutrino within the same generation as $\beta$ and $1-\beta$, respectively.
Assuming that third-generation scalar LQs with charge $-1/3$ exclusively couple to quarks and leptons of the third-generation, the two possible decay channels are $\LQt \to \PQt \tau^{-}$ and $\LQt \to \PQb \nu$.
In this paper, we initially assume that $\beta=1$ so that the $\LQt$ always decays to a t$\tau$ pair. The results are then reinterpreted as a function of the branching
fraction with $\beta$ treated as a free parameter.

We consider events with at least one electron or muon and one $\tau$ lepton where the $\tau$ lepton undergoes a one- or three-prong hadronic decay, $\tauh \to \text{hadron(s)}+\nu_\tau$.
In $\LQt\ALQt$ decays, $\tau$ leptons arise directly from LQ decays, as well as from W bosons in the top quark decay chain, whereas electrons and muons are produced only in leptonic decays of W bosons or $\tau$ leptons.
The major backgrounds come from $\ttbar$+jets, Drell--Yan(DY)+jets, and W+jets production,
where a significant number of events have jets misidentified as hadronically decaying $\tau$ leptons.
The search is conducted in two orthogonal selections, labelled as category A and category B.
In category A, a same-sign $\mu\tauh$ pair is required in each event, which suppresses SM backgrounds.
Misidentified $\tauh$ candidates originating from jets constitute the main background in category A.
Category B utilizes both $\Pe\tauh$ and $\mu\tauh$ pairs with slightly relaxed $\tau$ lepton identification criteria without imposing a charge requirement on the lepton pair.
This yields a higher signal acceptance, but a larger irreducible background from SM processes.
In order to keep the two samples statistically independent, events that satisfy the category A criteria are removed from the category B sample.
Figure~\ref{lqDecayChainPlot} shows a schematic representation of an $\LQt\ALQt$ decay chain that can satisfy the requirements for both categories.

\begin{figure}[tp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{CategoryA/EXO14008decaychain_vFR1.pdf}
\caption{One of the $\LQt\ALQt$ decay chains with both same-sign and opposite-sign $\ell\tauh$ pairs. Labels u and d denote up and down type quarks, and $\ell$ denotes an electron or a muon.\label{lqDecayChainPlot}}
\end{figure}

The signature for this search is chosen to be $\ell\tauh$+$X$, where $\ell$ denotes an electron or a muon, and $X$ is two or more jets and any additional charged leptons in category A, or three or more jets and any additional charged leptons in category B.
The additional jet requirement in category B is beneficial in suppressing background events from dominant SM processes with two jets and an opposite-sign $\ell\tauh$ pair.

\section{Reconstruction and identification of physics objects}

The CMS apparatus is a multipurpose particle detector with a superconducting solenoid of 6\unit{m} internal diameter, which provides a magnetic field of 3.8\unit{T}.
Within the volume of the solenoid are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter, and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections.
Muons are measured in gas-ionization detectors embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid.
Extensive forward calorimetry complements the coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors.
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.~\cite{CMSdetector}.

The electron, muon, and $\tau$ lepton candidates used in this paper are reconstructed using a particle-flow (PF) event reconstruction technique~\cite{CMS:2009nxa,CMS-PAS-PFT-10-001}
which reconstructs and identifies single particles (muons, electrons, charged/neutral hadrons, and photons) using an optimized combination of all subdetector information.

Muon candidates are reconstructed from a combined track in the muon system and the tracking system \cite{Chatrchyan:2012xi}.
The hadronically decaying $\tau$ lepton candidates are reconstructed via the ``hadron-plus-strips'' algorithm which combines one or three charged hadrons with up to two neutral pions
that are reconstructed from PF candidates combining tracker and calorimeter information~\cite{CMS-TAU-paper}.
Electron candidates are obtained by reconstructing trajectories from hits in the tracker layers and energy depositions in the electromagnetic calorimeter with a Gaussian sum filter~\cite{Khachatryan:2015hwa}.

Jets are reconstructed by using the anti-\kt algorithm~\cite{CMS-PAS-PFT-10-001,antiKT,JEScalib} to cluster PF candidates with a distance parameter of $\Delta R=0.5$ (where $\Delta R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^2+(\Delta\phi)^2}}$, $\eta$ denotes the pseudorapidity and $\phi$ denotes the azimuthal angle in radians).
The missing transverse momentum $\ptvecmiss$ is calculated as a negative vectorial sum of the transverse momenta of all the PF candidates.
The missing transverse energy \MET is defined as the magnitude of the $\ptvecmiss$ vector.
Jet energy corrections are applied to all jets and are also propagated to the calculation of \ETmiss~\cite{CMS-PAS-JME-12-002}.

The collisions are selected using a two-tiered trigger system, composed of a hardware based level-1 trigger and a software based high-level trigger (HLT)~\cite{Adam:2005zf} running on a computing farm.

The following quantities are constructed using the physics objects described earlier:

\begin{itemize}
\item $\ST$ is the scalar $\pt$ sum of all objects in the event, including muons, hadronically decaying $\tau$ leptons, electrons, jets, and \ETmiss.
\item $M_\mathrm{T}(\ell,\ptvecmiss)$ is the transverse mass, $\sqrt{2\pt^{\ell}\ETmiss(1-\cos(\Delta\phi(\ptvecmiss,\ell)))}$, reconstructed from the given lepton and the $\ptvecmiss$ in the event where $\Delta\phi(\ptvecmiss,\ell)$ is the difference in the azimuthal angle between the directions of the missing transverse momentum and the lepton momentum.
\item $\widetilde{\abs{\eta}}$ is the pseudorapidity defined as $\widetilde{\abs{\eta}} = -\ln{\tan{(\bar{\theta}/2)}}$, where $\bar{\theta}$ is the average absolute polar angle of all electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying $\tau$ leptons in an event as measured from the beam-axis in the lab frame, and is used as a measure of the event centrality.
\end{itemize}

\section{Data and simulated samples \label{DataMCsamples}}

This analysis uses data collected with the CMS detector at the LHC during proton-proton (pp) collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$\TeV.
Proton bunches were separated by 50\unit{ns} and the average number of additional primary vertices in the collision of the two beams in the same proton bunch crossing was 20 (pileup).
The search is conducted using a combination of isolated and non-isolated single-muon data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.5\fbinv in category A, and using isolated single-muon or single-electron data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7\fbinv in category B.
The muon triggers require a muon candidate to have $\pt>24$\GeV and $\abs{\eta}<2.1$.
The electron trigger requires an isolated electron candidate with $\pt>27$\GeV and $\abs{\eta}<2.5$.

The LQ signal processes have been simulated using the \PYTHIA generator (v6.426)~\cite{pythia}.
Single top quark and top quark pair production have been simulated with \POWHEG (v1.0)~\cite{powheg1,Alioli:2009je,Re:2010bp,Frixione:2007nw}.
For the W+jets background, DY+jets processes, and \ttbar production in association with W or Z bosons, \MADGRAPH (v5.1) has been used~\cite{madgraph}.
Diboson and QCD multijet processes as well as processes involving Higgs bosons have been generated with \PYTHIA, other SM backgrounds have been simulated with \MADGRAPH.
The parton shower and hadronization in samples generated with \POWHEG or \MADGRAPH has been performed with \PYTHIA. In case of \MADGRAPH, the matching to \PYTHIA has been done with the MLM scheme~\cite{MLM}.
In all of the generated samples, $\tau$ lepton decays were simulated via \TAUOLA \cite{tauola} and the response of the CMS detector has been simulated with \GEANTfour~\cite{geant4}.
The \POWHEG samples are produced with the CT10~\cite{Lai:2010vv} parton distribution function (PDF), all other samples have been generated using CTEQ6L1~\cite{CTEQpaper} PDF set.
The Monte Carlo (MC) simulated events are re-weighted to account for differences in trigger and lepton reconstruction efficiencies, pileup modeling, and  jet/missing transverse energy response of the detector.
The simulated events are normalized using next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) (W+jets, DY+jets~\cite{Li:2012wna}, $\ttbar$+jets~\cite{Czakon:2013goa}, WH, ZH~\cite{Brein:2012ne}), approximate NNLO (t, tW~\cite{Kidonakis:2008mu}), NLO (diboson~\cite{Campbell:2011bn}, $\ttbar\Z$~\cite{ttWZ}, $\ttbar\PW$~\cite{ttWZ,ttW}, $\ttbar\PH$~\cite{Frederix:2011zi,Garzelli:2011vp}, triboson~\cite{Alwall:2014hca}), or leading-order ($\PW^\pm\PW^\pm\PQq\PQq$, $\ttbar\PW\PW$, $\PW\gamma^{*}$, QCD multijet~\cite{pythia,madgraph}) cross sections at $\sqrt{s}=8$\TeV.

The characteristics of the simulated $\ttbar$+jets and W+jets events have been found to contain discrepancies when compared with measurements of the $\pt$ spectrum of top quarks~\cite{CMS-PAS-TOP-12-028} and the leading jet~\cite{Khachatryan:2014uva}, respectively.
Re-weighting factors, parametrized as functions of the respective $\pt$ distributions, are applied to the simulated events to correct for these discrepancies.
The correction factors for $\ttbar$+jets~\cite{CMS-PAS-TOP-12-028} range up to 30\% whereas the correction factors for the W+jets samples vary between 8\% and 12\%.

\section{Event selection\label{Selection}}

A summary of the search regions, selection criteria, and the methods used to determine background contributions for categories A and B is given in Table~\ref{SelScheme}.

\begin{table}
\centering
{\caption{Summary of the search strategies in event categories A and B. }\label{SelScheme}}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{ l |  l  l  }
\hline
&  Category A & Category B \\ \hline
\multirow{1}{*}{Lepton selection} & Same-sign $\mu\tauh$ pair &  $\mu\tauh$ or $\Pe\tauh$ pair \\
& & (category A events are removed) \\[1.2ex]
Jet selection & At least two jets & At least three jets\\[1.2ex]
$\ETmiss$ requirement & No $\ETmiss$ requirement & $\ETmiss>50$\GeV \\[1.2ex]
$\ST$ and $\tau$ lepton $\pt$ & Optimized for each LQ  & $\ST>1000$\GeV, $\pt^{\tau}>20$\GeV \\
 requirements  & mass hypothesis & \\[1.2ex]
\multirow{3}{*}{Background estimation} & Main component containing        & Estimated via simulation, corrections\\
                                       & misidentified muons $\&$ $\tau$ leptons & applied for $\tau$ lepton misidentification \\
                                       & estimated using data events    & rate and top quark and W $\pt$ distributions\\[1.2ex]
\multirow{2}{*}{Search regions} & \multirow{2}{*}{2 search regions binned in $\widetilde{\abs{\eta}}$} & 8 search regions in 4 $\tau$ lepton $\pt$ regions \\
                                 &                                                                  & for $\mu\tauh$ and $\Pe\tauh$ channels \\[1.2ex]
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}

\subsection{Event selection in category A\label{SelectionCatA}}

In category A,
two selections, denoted as loose and tight, are defined for the muon and $\tau$ lepton candidates, which differ only in the thresholds of the isolation requirements.
The tight selections are applied to define the signal region, and the loose selections are used in the estimation of backgrounds as defined in Section~\ref{BackgroundsCatA}.

Muon candidates are required to have $\pt>25$\GeV and $\abs{\eta}<2.1$.
The loose muon selection has no isolation requirement, whereas the tight muon selection requires the scalar $\pt$ sum of all PF candidates in a cone of radius $\Delta R=0.4$ around the muon to be less than 12\% of the muon $\pt$.
The muon kinematic and isolation thresholds are chosen to match the trigger requirements used in selecting the events.

Hadronically decaying $\tau$ lepton candidates are required to satisfy $\pt>20$\GeV and $\abs{\eta}<2.1$.
For the loose $\tau$ lepton selection, the scalar $\pt$ sum of charged hadron and photon PF candidates with $\pt>0.5$\GeV in a cone of radius $\Delta R=0.3$ around the $\tau$ lepton candidate is required to be less than 3\GeV.
For the tight $\tau$ lepton selection, a more restrictive isolation requirement is applied with a cone of radius $\Delta R=0.5$ and a threshold value of 0.8\GeV~\cite{CMS-TAU-paper}.
All $\tauh$ candidates are required to satisfy a requirement that suppresses the misidentification of electrons and muons as hadronically decaying $\tau$ leptons~\cite{CMS-TAU-paper}.

Electron candidates are required to have $\pt>15$\GeV and $\abs{\eta}<2.5$.
The ratio of the scalar $\pt$ sum of all PF candidates in a cone of radius $\Delta R=0.3$ around the electron object, relative to the electron $\pt$, is required to be less than 15\%.

All muon, electron, and $\tauh$ candidates are required to be separated by $\Delta R>0.3$ from each other.
In addition, the separation between the muon and $\tau$ lepton candidates and the nearest jet to which they do not contribute is required to be $\Delta R(\mu,j)_{\text{min}}>0.5$ and $\Delta R(\tau,j)_{\text{min}}>0.7$ respectively. This requirement is imposed in order to reduce the impact of QCD jet activity on the respective isolation cones.

Jet candidates are required to have $\pt>40$\GeV, $\abs{\eta}<3$. Jets overlapping with the electron, muon, and $\tauh$ candidates
within a cone of $\Delta R=0.5$ are not considered.

Each event is required to contain a same-sign $\mu\tauh$ pair, chosen among the muon and $\tauh$ lepton candidates satisfying the loose selection criteria.
If the event contains more than one $\mu\tauh$ pair, the same-sign pair with the largest scalar sum $\pt$ is selected.
The selected $\mu\tauh$ pair is then required to satisfy the tight selection criteria.
Events failing the tight selection criteria on one or both leptons are utilized in the estimation of backgrounds described in Section \ref{BackgroundsCatA}.

For the signal selection, same-sign $\mu\tauh$ events  are required to have $\ST>$ 400\GeV and two or more jets.
Events containing an opposite-sign dimuon pair with an invariant mass within 10\% of the Z boson mass are vetoed.
In order to exploit a feature of the signal model that produces the $\LQt$ pair dominantly in the central region, the search is split into two channels with $\widetilde{\abs{\eta}}<0.9$ (central) and $\widetilde{\abs{\eta}}\ge0.9$ (forward).
Furthermore, a 2D optimization is performed using the simulated samples for the determination of selection criteria in the ($\ST$,$\pt^{\tau}$) plane for each $\LQt$ mass hypothesis in the range of 200--800\GeV.
The $\pt^{\tau}$ requirement is only applied to the $\tau$ lepton candidate that is a part of the selected same-sign $\mu\tauh$ pair.
The optimization is accomplished by maximizing the figure of merit given in Eq.~(\ref{PunziEqu})~\cite{Punzi:2003bu}:
\begin{equation}\label{PunziEqu}
\chi(\pt^{\tau},\ST)=\frac{\varepsilon(\pt^{\tau},\ST)}{1+\sqrt{B(\pt^{\tau},\ST)}}
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon$ is the signal efficiency and $B$ is the number of background events.
The ($\ST$,$\pt^{\tau}$) thresholds have been optimized in the central channel and applied identically in the forward channel. These optimized selections and the corresponding efficiencies as a function of the $\rm{LQ}_3$ mass are presented later, in Section~\ref{ResultsSection}.

A signal-depleted selection of events with a same-sign $\mu\tauh$ pair, created by vetoing events with more than one jet,
is used to check the performance and normalization of the simulated background samples.
In order to reduce the QCD multijet background contribution, an additional requirement of $M_\mathrm{T}(\mu,\ETmiss)>40$\GeV is imposed using the muon candidate in the selected same-sign $\mu\tauh$ pair.
Figure~\ref{PreselectionPlotsCatA} illustrates the agreement between data and simulation in the $\widetilde{\abs{\eta}}$ and $\ST$ distributions, which is found to be within 20\%.

\subsection{Event selection in category B \label{EventSelectionCatB}}

In category B, muon candidates are required to have $\pt>30$\GeV and $\abs{\eta}<2.1$.
The muon isolation requirement follows the tight muon selection defined for category A.

Hadronically decaying $\tau$ leptons must satisfy $\pt>20$\GeV and $\abs{\eta}<2.1$.
For $\tauh$ candidates a medium isolation requirement is used, where
the scalar $\pt$ sum of PF candidates must not exceed 1\GeV in a cone of radius $\Delta R=0.5$.
As in category A, $\tauh$ candidates must satisfy the requirement discriminating against misreconstructed electrons and muons.

Electron candidates are required to have $\pt>35$\GeV and $\abs{\eta}<2.1$.
The electron isolation requirement follows the description in category A, but with a tighter threshold at 10\% in order to match the trigger isolation requirements in the $\Pe\tauh$ channel.

Jets are required to have $\pt>30$\GeV, $\abs{\eta}<2.5$, and those overlapping with $\tauh$ candidates within a cone of $\Delta R=0.5$ are ignored.
Furthermore, $\tau$ leptons that overlap with a muon, and electrons that overlap with a jet within a cone of $\Delta R=0.5$ are not considered.

Each event is required to have at least one electron or muon and one $\tauh$ candidate.
Events containing muons are vetoed in the $\Pe\tauh$ channel.
Events satisfying the category A selection criteria are also vetoed, thus in the case of the $\mu\tauh$ selection, category B mostly consists of events with opposite-sign $\mu\tauh$ pairs.

In addition, events are required to have $\ST>1000$\GeV, $\ETmiss>50$\GeV, and at least three jets, where the leading and subleading jets further satisfy $\pt>100$ and 50\GeV, respectively.
The analysis in category B is performed in four search regions defined as a function of the transverse momentum of the leading $\tauh$ candidate: $20<\pt^\tau<60$\GeV, $60<\pt^\tau<120$\GeV, $120<\pt^\tau<200$\GeV, and $\pt^\tau>200$\GeV.
Since events with $\Pe\tauh$ and $\mu\tauh$ pairs are separated, this selection leads to eight search regions.
The two low-$\pt^\tau$ regions are mainly used to constrain the SM background processes, whereas the signal is expected to populate the two high-$\pt^\tau$ regions.
The selections on $\ST$, the momenta of the three jets, and $\ETmiss$ have been optimized with respect to the expected limits on the signal cross section obtained in the statistical evaluation of the search regions as described in Section~\ref{ResultsSection}.

A signal-depleted selection is used to check the performance of the simulated background samples in category B.
In this selection, events with $\ell\tauh$ pairs are required to have $\ETmiss < 50$\GeV and at least two jets with $\pt>50$\GeV, $\abs{\eta}<2.5$.
Figure ~\ref{PreselectionPlotsCatB} shows that in general the agreement between data and simulation is within the statistical uncertainties in the leading $\pt^{\tau}$ distributions.
In the $\Pe\tauh$ channel, a small excess in the  $\pt$ distribution is observed around 150\GeV.
As the other kinematic distributions in the signal-depleted region show no other significant deviations, the excess is assumed to be a statistical fluctuation.

\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Plots_paper_Overflow/HalilMainpreselectionAveAbsEtaV3PAS.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Plots_paper_Overflow/HalilMainpreselectionSTPAS.pdf}
\caption{Comparison between data and simulation in the $\widetilde{\abs{\eta}}$ (left) and $\ST$ (right) distributions using the signal-depleted selection of events in category A with a same-sign $\mu\tauh$ pair.
Other backgrounds refer to contributions predominantly from processes such as diboson and single top quark production, as well as QCD multijet and other rare SM processes detailed in Section~\ref{DataMCsamples}.
The hatched regions in the distributions and the shaded bands in the Data/MC ratio plots represent the statistical uncertainties in the expectations.
The data-simulation agreement is observed to be within 20\%, and is assigned as the normalization systematic uncertainty for the $\ttbar$+jets, DY+jets and diboson contributions in the signal region.
\label{PreselectionPlotsCatA}}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Plots_paper_Overflow/ClosureTestCycle_Main_pT_Tau_Muon.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Plots_paper_Overflow/ClosureTestCycle_Main_pT_Tau.pdf}
\caption{Comparison between data and simulation in the leading $\tau$ lepton $\pt$ distributions using the signal-depleted selection of events in category B in the $\mu\tauh$ channel (left) and in the $\Pe\tauh$ channel (right).
Other backgrounds refer to contributions predominantly from processes such as diboson and single top quark production, but also include QCD multijet and rare SM processes detailed in Section~\ref{DataMCsamples}.
The hatched regions in the distributions and the shaded bands in the Data/MC ratio plots represent the statistical uncertainties in the expectations.
\label{PreselectionPlotsCatB}}
\end{figure}

\section{Backgrounds}

For this analysis, prompt leptons are defined to be those that come from the decays of W bosons, Z bosons or $\tau$ leptons, and are usually well isolated.
Leptons originating from semileptonic heavy-flavor decays within jets and jets misreconstructed as leptons are both labelled as misidentified leptons, and generally are not isolated.
In category A, the expected same-sign background events are mostly due to misidentified leptons, while category B has significant additional prompt-prompt contributions.
In accordance with the expected background compositions, data events are used to estimate the dominant misidentified lepton backgrounds in category A, eliminating the need to evaluate the simulation based systematic uncertainties, whereas the prompt-prompt backgrounds in category B require the consideration of these uncertainties.
Simulated samples corrected for $\tau$ lepton misidentification rates are used for the estimation of the backgrounds in category B.

\subsection{Backgrounds in category A\label{BackgroundsCatA}}

The same-sign dilepton requirement yields a background which mainly consists of events that contain misidentified leptons (especially jets misidentified as $\tau$ leptons).
These events come from semileptonic $\ttbar$+jets and W+jets processes in approximately equal proportions.
Smaller background contributions result from SM processes with genuine same-sign dileptons, such as diboson, $\ttbar\PW$, $\ttbar\Z$, and $\PW^\pm\PW^\pm\PQq\PQq$ events, and opposite-sign dilepton events in which the $\tauh$ charge has been misidentified,
such as DY+jets and fully leptonic $\ttbar$+jets events.
Events with misidentified leptons contribute up to 90\% of the total background, depending on the set of $\ST$ and $\tau$ lepton $\pt$ requirements, and are especially dominant in selections for $M_{\LQt}\le400$\GeV.

\subsubsection{Lepton misidentification}

Background contributions due to misidentified leptons are estimated using the observed data via a ``matrix method''~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012bra}.
For a given set of selection requirements, four combinations are defined based on the selection quality of the selected same-sign $\mu\tauh$ pair.
Events in which both leptons satisfy the tight selection requirements are classified as TT events, whereas those with both leptons failing the tight selection while satisfying the loose selection requirements are classified as LL events.
Similarly, events with only the muon or the $\tauh$ candidate satisfying the tight selection and with the other lepton satisfying the loose selection but failing the tight selection requirements are labeled as TL or LT events, respectively, where the muon is denoted first in the labeling.

The probabilities with which prompt ($p$) and misidentified ($m$) muon and $\tauh$ candidates pass a tight selection, given that they satisfy a loose selection, are measured as a function of the lepton $\pt$ in regions of $\ST$, lepton $\abs{\eta}$, and $\Delta R(\mu,j)_{\text{min}}$ or $\Delta R(\tau,j)_{\text{min}}$.
The TT events constitute the search region, whereas TL, LT, and LL events, together with the prompt and misidentification probabilities, are used to calculate the misidentified lepton contributions to the signal region, $N_{\mathrm{TT}}^{\text{misID}}$, as given in Eqs.~(\ref{inverseMatrix}) and~(\ref{TotalFakeBackground}).
\begin{equation}\label{inverseMatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
N_{\mathrm{MM}}\\
N_{\mathrm{MP}}\\
N_{\mathrm{PM}}\\
N_{\mathrm{PP}}\end{pmatrix}
=
\frac{1}{(p_\mu-m_\mu)(p_\tau-m_\tau)}
\begin{pmatrix}
~~~p_\mu{\cdot}p_\tau & -p_\mu{\cdot}\widehat{p_\tau}  &-\widehat{p_\mu}{\cdot}p_\tau & ~~~\widehat{p_\mu}{\cdot}\widehat{p_\tau} \\
-p_\mu{\cdot}m_\tau &  ~~~p_\mu{\cdot}\widehat{m_\tau}   & ~~~\widehat{p_\mu}{\cdot}m_\tau  & -\widehat{p_\mu}{\cdot}\widehat{m_\tau} \\
-m_\mu{\cdot}p_\tau & ~~~m_\mu{\cdot}\widehat{p_\tau}    & ~~~\widehat{m_\mu}{\cdot}p_\tau  & -\widehat{m_\mu}{\cdot}\widehat{p_\tau} \\
~\;~~m_\mu{\cdot}m_\tau   & -m_\mu{\cdot}\widehat{m_\tau}    &-\widehat{m_\mu}{\cdot}m_\tau   & ~~~\widehat{m_\mu}{\cdot}\widehat{m_\tau}\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
N_{\mathrm{LL}} \\
N_{\mathrm{LT}} \\
N_{\mathrm{TL}} \\
N_{\mathrm{TT}} \end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{TotalFakeBackground}
N_{\mathrm{TT}}^{\text{misID}}=m_\mu m_\tau  N_{\mathrm{MM}}+m_\mu p_\tau  N_{\mathrm{MP}}+p_\mu m_\tau N_{\mathrm{PM}}.
\end{equation}

$N$ denotes the number of events in a given combination, and MM, MP, PM, and PP labels denote the double-misidentified, muon misidentified, $\tauh$ misidentified, and double-prompt combinations, respectively.
The complementary prompt probability is given as $\widehat{p}=1-p$, and the complementary misidentification probability is given as $\widehat{m}=1-m$.

Muon and $\tau$ lepton prompt probabilities are measured in DY+jets enhanced data regions with $\Z\to \mu\mu$ and $\Z \to \tau\tau \to \mu\tauh$ decays, respectively, and in simulated $\ttbar$+jets,  W+jets and $\LQt$ events.
For the $\tau$ lepton misidentification probability measurements, a $\PW(\to \mu\nu)$+jets enriched data set with additional $\tauh$ candidates is used.
A QCD multijet enhanced data set with a single muon candidate is used for the muon misidentification probability measurements.
In simulated samples, the $\tau$ lepton misidentification probability measurement is conducted in W+jets, $\ttbar$+jets, and $\LQt$ samples, while the muon misidentification probability measurement is made in QCD multijet, $\ttbar$+jets, and $\LQt$ samples.

The individual prompt and misidentification probability measurements conducted using simulated samples are combined into a single value for each of the $p$ and $m$ bins.
For each of these, an average value and an associated uncertainty is calculated to account for the process dependent variations.
These simulation based values are then combined with correction factors derived from the $p$ and $m$ measurements in data,
to account for any bias in the simulated detector geometry and response, providing the values used in Eqs.~(\ref{inverseMatrix}) and (\ref{TotalFakeBackground}).
The resultant muon prompt probabilities vary from $(70\pm3)\%$ to $(95\pm3)\%$ for low and high \pt muons, whereas $\tau$ lepton prompt probabilities are around $(60\pm6)\%$.
The muon and $\tau$ lepton misidentification probabilities are measured to be about $(1\pm1)\%$ and $(14\pm2)\%$, respectively.

The matrix method yields consistent results for the misidentification backgrounds when applied to a signal-depleted selection of events in data and to simulated events in the signal region.
The expected yields are in agreement with the observations within 1.5 standard deviations in both selections.

\subsubsection{Charge misidentification and irreducible backgrounds}

The background contributions due to lepton charge misidentification and irreducible processes with same-sign $\mu\tauh$ pairs are estimated directly from the simulated samples.
These prompt-prompt contributions are calculated by requiring a match ($\Delta R<0.15$) between the reconstructed lepton candidate and a generator-level object of the same kind without any requirement on the charge.
The charge misidentification backgrounds are dominated by $\tauh$ candidates,
and these backgrounds contribute to 2--3\% of the total expected backgrounds in selections for $M_{\LQt}\le400$\GeV, whereas are negligible in those for higher $\LQt$ masses.

\subsection{Backgrounds in category B \label{osbackground}}

In category B, major background processes are $\ttbar$+jets, W+jets, and DY+jets events.
Smaller contributions come from single top quark, diboson, $\ttbar\Z$, and QCD multijet events.
Contributions from prompt-prompt $\ell\tauh$ pairs are mainly expected in fully leptonic $\ttbar$+jets events, as well as DY+jets events with $\Z \to \tau\tau \to \ell\tauh$ decays and diboson events.
In all other processes, the $\tauh$ candidates are expected to originate from misidentified jets.
The misidentified electron and muon contributions have been found to be negligible after applying isolation and \ETmiss requirements.
The background estimation in category B is obtained from simulated samples with various corrections applied to account for differences between data and simulation in the reconstruction and identification of misidentified $\tau$ lepton candidates.

The $\tau$ lepton misidentification rate is defined as the probability for a misidentified $\tau$ lepton candidate originating from a jet to satisfy the final $\tau$ lepton identification criteria used in the analysis. The corresponding correction factor for the simulation is defined as the ratio of the data and the simulation-based rates.
The misidentification rates in data and simulation are measured in $\PW(\to \ell\nu)$+jets enriched events, containing at least one $\tau$ lepton candidate.
The $\tau$ lepton candidate is used as a misidentified probe, and the results are parametrized as a function of the $\tau$ lepton $\pt$.
Additional parametrizations, such as $\ST$, jet multiplicity, and $\Delta R(\tau,j)_{\text{min}}$, reveal no further deviations between the data and simulation. Thus a one-dimensional parametrization as a function of the $\tau$ lepton $\pt$ is used to describe any discrepancy between data and simulation. A small discrepancy is observed in the distribution of scale factors as a function of the $\tau$ lepton $\eta$ for $\abs{\eta}>1.5$.
An additional uncertainty is therefore assigned to the $\tau$ lepton scale factors for misidentified $\tau$ leptons in this $\eta$ region.

Measurements based on data are corrected by subtracting the small contributions due to prompt $\tau$ leptons, muons, and electrons which are misidentified as $\tau$ lepton candidates using the predictions from the simulated samples.
The systematic uncertainties in the correction factors are estimated by varying the cross sections of the dominant simulated processes within their uncertainties~\cite{Chatrchyan:2013faa}.

The resulting correction factors on the $\tau$ lepton misidentification rate are found to be in the range of 0.6--1.1 for the four $\tau$ lepton $\pt$ regions.
These weights are applied to each misidentified $\tau$ lepton candidate in all simulated background processes.

A jet originating from gluon emission has a smaller probability of being misidentified as a $\tauh$ candidate than those originating from quarks.
Quarks tend to produce incorrectly assigned $\tau$ lepton candidates with a like-sign charge.
Therefore, an additional systematic uncertainty is assigned to the correction factors based on the flavor composition of jets misidentified as $\tau$ leptons.
To determine this uncertainty, the measurement of the $\tau$ lepton misidentification rate is repeated for each of the charge combinations of the $\ell\tauh$ pair, $\tauh^\pm\ell^\pm$ and $\tauh^\pm\ell^\mp$.
Because of the different production modes of \PWp and \PWm bosons at the LHC, the four charge combinations have different quark and gluon compositions.
An estimate of the maximally allowed variance in the probability of each quark or gluon type to be misidentified as a $\tau$ lepton is obtained via the comparison of the misidentification rate measurements in the four channels.
The uncertainties in the misidentification rates are scaled according to the different expected flavor compositions in the signal and $\PW(\to \ell\nu)$+jets enriched regions used for the misidentification rate measurements.

\subsection{Systematic uncertainties}

In category A, the backgrounds due to misidentified leptons are derived from data and the associated systematic uncertainties are calculated by propagating the uncertainties in the muon and $\tau$ lepton prompt and misidentification probability measurements.
The uncertainties in the background rate of misidentified leptons lie in the range of 21--28\% in the central channel and 21--36\% in the forward channel.

In category B, the uncertainties in the correction factors on the misidentification rate of $\tau$ leptons vary from 23--38\% for the lower three $\tau$ lepton $\pt$ regions and up to 58--82\% for the highest $\pt$ region in the $\mu\tauh$ and  $\Pe\tauh$ channels.
These uncertainties are propagated to the estimate of the background of misidentified hadronically decaying $\tau$ leptons by varying the correction factors applied to the simulation within their uncertainties.

Since both the signal efficiencies and the prompt-prompt contributions to the background in category A and all the signal and background estimates in category B are determined using simulated events, the following sources of systematic uncertainty are considered.

Normalization uncertainties of 20\%  are applied for $\ttbar$+jets, DY+jets and diboson processes in category A as observed in the signal-depleted region presented in Fig.~\ref{PreselectionPlotsCatA}.
An uncertainty of 30\% is applied for other rare SM process as motivated by the theoretical uncertainties in the NLO cross sections for processes such as $\ttbar\PW$, $\ttbar\Z$~\cite{ttWZ,ttW}, and triboson~\cite{Alwall:2014hca} production.
For category B, these uncertainties in the MC normalization vary in a range between 15\% and 100\% according to previous measurements~\cite{Chatrchyan:2013faa}.
The CMS luminosity used in the normalization of signal and MC samples has an uncertainty of 2.6\% \cite{CMS-PAS-LUM-13-001}.

In order to account for uncertainties in the efficiency of $\tau$ lepton identification, an uncertainty of 6\% is applied for each prompt $\tau$ lepton found in the event.
The uncertainty in the $\tau$ lepton energy is taken into account by varying the energy of all $\tau$ leptons by $\pm$3\%.
Uncertainties induced by the energy resolution of prompt $\tau$ leptons in simulated samples are estimated by changing the resolution by $\pm$10\%.

Muon and electron identification, isolation, and trigger efficiencies are determined with a tag-and-probe method~\cite{TagAndProbe} in DY+jets enriched data.
In both categories, the muon reconstruction and isolation uncertainty is about 1\% and the single muon trigger matching uncertainty is $\leq$0.5\%.
Uncertainties in electron identification, isolation, and trigger efficiencies are considered only in the $\Pe\tauh$ channel of category B.
These uncertainties are \pt- and $\eta$-dependent and are found to be 0.3\% for electrons in the central detector region with $\pt<50$\GeV and up to 25\% for electrons with $\pt>500$\GeV.

Uncertainties in the jet energy resolution~\cite{JEScalib} are taken into account by changing the correction factors within their uncertainties.
These correction factors lie between 1.05 and 1.29 depending on jet $\eta$, with corresponding uncertainties varying from 5\% to 16\%.
The \pt- and $\eta$-dependent scale factors for the jet energy scale~\cite{JEScalib} are similarly varied by one standard deviation to obtain the corresponding uncertainties in simulated samples.
This corresponds to a 1--3\% variation of the scale factors.

The energy scale and resolution uncertainties in $\tau$ lepton, muon, electron, and jet candidates are also propagated in the calculation of $\ETmiss$ and $\ST$.

The uncertainty in the pileup re-weighting of simulated samples is estimated by varying the total inelastic cross section~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012nj} by 5\%.
Signal samples are produced with the CTEQ6L1 PDF set and the associated PDF uncertainties in the signal acceptance are estimated using the PDF uncertainty prescription for LHC~\cite{Alekhin:2011sk,PDF4LHC,Bourilkov}.
In category B, the PDF uncertainties are also calculated for the background processes estimated using simulations.

Additional uncertainties in major SM processes estimated from simulations are considered in category B.
Uncertainties in the factorization and normalization scales, $\mu_\mathrm{r}$ and $\mu_\mathrm{f}$, respectively, on $\ttbar$+jets and W+jets events are calculated by changing the corresponding scales by a factor of 2 or 0.5.
The effect of an uncertainty in the jet-parton matching threshold in the simulation of W+jets processes is evaluated by varying it within a factor of 2.
The uncertainty in the top quark \pt re-weighting procedure is estimated by doubling and removing the correction factors.

Table~\ref{SystematicsTable} shows a summary of the systematic uncertainties for categories A and B.

\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
\topcaption{Systematic uncertainty sources and their effects on background ($B$) and signal ($S$) estimates.
Uncertainties affecting the signal yields in both categories and the background yields in category A are calculated using the selection criteria for the $M_{\LQt}=550$\GeV hypothesis.
In category A, the uncertainties are reported for central/forward channels separately, where appropriate.
In category B, all uncertainties are averaged over the four $\pt^\tau$ search bins.
All values are symmetric except for the PDF uncertainty in the signal acceptance in category A, and the $\ttbar$ factorization and normalization scale uncertainty in category B.
The $\tau$ misidentification rate uncertainties considered in category B are included in the matrix method uncertainty in category A.
All uncertainties in the background estimates are scaled according to their relative contributions to the total expected background.
}\label{SystematicsTable}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{ l | c | c c | c c c c}
\hline
 &  &  \multicolumn{2}{c |}{Category A}  &  \multicolumn{4}{c}{Category B} \\ \cline{3-8}
 &  &  &  &  \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\mu\tauh$ ch.} &  \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\Pe\tauh$ ch.} \\
Systematic uncertainty & Magnitude (\%) & $B$ (\%) & $S$ (\%) & $B$ (\%) & $S$ (\%) & $B$ (\%) & $S$ (\%) \\
\hline
Integrated luminosity             & 2.6 & 0.4/1.2   & 2.6 & 2.6 & 2.6 & 2.6 &2.6  \\
Electron reco/ID/iso $\&$ trigger & $\pt$, $\eta$ dependent & --- & --- & --- & --- & 1.4 & 2.2 \\
Muon reco/ID/iso $\&$ trigger & 1.1 & 0.1/0.5  & 1.1  & 0.9 & 0.9 &  ---    &  ---    \\
$\tau$ lepton reco/ID/iso & 6.0 & 0.8/2.8   & 6.0     & 1.5 & 3.0 & 0.6 & 3.1 \\
Muon momentum scale $\&$ resolution & $\pt$ dependent & 0.1/0.3 & 0.4 & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
$\tau$ lepton energy scale       & 3.0  & 1.2/4.1   & 2.0 &  2.3 & 2.7 &0.6 & 1.5 \\
$\tau$ lepton energy resolution  & 10.0 & 0.2/0.8   & 0.9 & 1.2 & 1.3 & 0.2 & 0.1 \\
Jet energy scale       & $\pt$, $\eta$ dependent  & 0.9/3.2   & 1.9 & 4.2 & 1.9 &5.6 & 2.7  \\
Jet energy resolution  & $\eta$ dependent         & 0.4/1.2   & 1.0 & 0.8 & 0.3 &1.6 & 0.8\\
Pileup                 & 5.0 & 0.1/1.2   & 1.0/2.5 & 0.8 & 0.3 & 0.9 & 0.5 \\
PDF (on acceptance)           & ---   & ---        & $^{+2.9}_{-4.3}$$\big /$$^{+2.4}_{-6.2}$ & ---     & 0.7 & ---     & 0.9 \\
PDF (on background)           & ---   & ---        &                   ---                     & 8.7 & ---     & 8.3 & ---     \\
Matrix method  & --- & 23.1/15.3 & --- & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
$\text{Jet} \to \tau$ misidentification rate  & $\pt$ dependent & --- & --- & 8.2 & 1.0& 10.9 & 0.8 \\
$\Pe \to \tau$ misidentification rate &$\eta$ dependent & --- & --- &0.1& 0.1&0.1&   0.1\\
$\ttbar$ factorization/renormalization & $^{+100}_{-50}$  & --- & --- & $^{+6.1}_{-5.9}$ & --- &  $^{+2.9}_{-2.7}$ & --- \\
Top quark $\pt$ re-weighting  &  $\pt$ dependent  & --- & --- & 0.1 & --- & 0.1  & --- \\
W+jets factorization/renormalization & $^{+100}_{-50}$  & --- & --- &   4.3 & --- & 0.3 & --- \\
W+jets matching threshold & $^{+100}_{-50}$  & --- & --- & 1.3 & --- &  2.5 & --- \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}

\section{Results \label{ResultsSection}}

The search results for category A (B) are presented in Table~\ref{SignalRegionResultsTable} (\ref{SignalRegionResultsTableOS} and \ref{SignalRegionResultsTableOSele}).
Figures~\ref{DATASignalRegionPlots} and~\ref{DATASignalRegionPlotsOS} show the comparison of data and the predicted backgrounds as a function of $\ST$, $\tau$ lepton $\pt$, and jet multiplicity parameters.
The dashed curves show the expectation for LQ signals.
For the comparison of expected and observed number of events in Tables \ref{SignalRegionResultsTable}--\ref{SignalRegionResultsTableOSele} and Figs.~\ref{DATASignalRegionPlots}--\ref{DATASignalRegionPlotsOS}, Z-scores are used. These are computed taking into account the total uncertainty in the mean number of expected events. A unit Z-score, $\abs{Z}=1$, refers to a two-tailed 1-standard deviation quantile ($\sim$68\%) of the normal distribution.
For each selection, the observed number of events is found to be in an overall agreement with the SM-only hypothesis and the distributions reveal no statistically significant deviations from the SM expectations.

A limit is set on the pair production cross section of charge $-1/3$ third-generation scalar LQs by using a combined likelihood fit in the ten search regions of category A and B.
The theta tool~\cite{theta} is used to produce Bayesian limits on the signal cross section,
where the statistical and systematic uncertainties are treated as nuisance parameters.
Statistical and systematic uncertainties that are specific to category A or B, such as the uncertainties in the backgrounds from misidentified leptons, are assumed to be uncorrelated, whereas common sources of systematic uncertainties are treated as fully correlated.
The common uncertainties are the uncertainties in the jet energy scale and resolution, $\tau$ lepton and muon identification and isolation efficiencies, $\tau$ lepton energy scale and resolution, PDFs, and integrated luminosity.

The observed and expected exclusion limits as a function of the LQ mass are shown in Fig.~\ref{DATAlimitPlots}.
Assuming a unit branching fraction of LQ decays to top quark and $\tau$ lepton pairs, pair production of third-generation LQs is excluded for masses up to 685\GeV with an expected limit of 695\GeV.
The exclusion limits worsen as the $\LQt$ mass approaches the mass of the top quark because the $\LQt$ decay products become softer.
At $M_{\LQt}=200$\GeV, more than 90\% of $\tau$ leptons originating from $\LQt$ decays have $\pt<60$\GeV,
which causes a decrease both in the signal selection efficiency and the discriminating performance of the $\tau$ lepton $\pt$ spectrum.
Therefore, no exclusion limits are quoted for masses below 200\GeV.

Branching fraction dependent exclusion limits are presented in Fig.~\ref{DATAlimitPlots} (lower right), where limits on the complementary $\LQt\to \PQb\nu$ ($\beta=0$) decay channel are also included.
The results for $\beta=0$ are obtained via reinterpretation of a search for pair produced bottom squarks~\cite{Khachatryan:2015wza} with subsequent decays into b quark and neutralino pairs, in the limit of vanishing neutralino masses.
In a statistical combination of this analysis with the search for bottom squarks, third-generation scalar LQs are also excluded for masses below 700\GeV for $\beta=0$ and for masses below 560\GeV over the full $\beta$ range.
If upper limits on $\beta$ are to be used to constrain the lepton-quark-LQ Yukawa couplings, $\lambda_{\PQb\nu}$ and $\lambda_{\PQt\tau}$, kinematic suppression factors that favor $\PQb\nu$ decay over the t$\tau$ have to be considered as well as the relative strengths of the two Yukawa couplings \cite{PhysRevLett.99.061801,PhysRevD.77.091105}.

Additionally, the results presented here for the third-generation scalar LQs are directly reinterpreted in the context of pair produced bottom squarks decaying into top quark and $\tau$ lepton pairs.
Thus, pair production of bottom squarks where the decay mode is dominated by the RPV coupling $\lambda^{\prime}_{333}$ is also excluded up to a bottom squark mass of 685\GeV.

\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\topcaption{Category A search results in the signal region for several $\LQt$ mass hypotheses.
The $\tau$ lepton $\pt$ and $\ST$ columns represent the optimized thresholds defined in Section \ref{SelectionCatA}.
The corresponding expected number of prompt-prompt and total background events, as well as the observed number of data events are listed as $N_{\text{Bkg}}^{\mathrm{PP}}$, total $N_{\text{Bkg}}^{\text{Exp}}$, and $N^{\text{Obs}}$.
The statistical and systematic uncertainties quoted in the expected number of background events are combinations of misidentified lepton and prompt-prompt components.
The $\epsilon_{\LQt}$ is the expected signal efficiency at a given $\LQt$ mass with respect to the total number of expected $\LQt$ signal events at $\sqrt{s}=8$\TeV with a $\mu\tauh$ pair of any charge combination.
No expected signal efficiency for $M_{\LQt}=200$\GeV is reported in the forward channel since the associated yield in the signal sample was measured to be zero.
}\label{SignalRegionResultsTable}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{ c c c | c c c r c c }
\hline
 $M_{\LQt}$      & $p^{\tau}_{\rm T}$ &  $\ST$  & $N_\text{Bkg}^\mathrm{PP}$ & Total $N_\text{Bkg}^\text{Exp}$ & $N^\text{Obs}$ & Z-score & $N_{\LQt}^\text{Exp}$ &  $\epsilon_{\LQt}$  \\
 (\GeVns) & (\GeVns) & (\GeVns) & $\pm\stat$ & $\pm\stat\pm\syst$ & & & $\pm\stat$ & (\%) \\
\hline
\rule[\baselineskip]{0pt}{2.5ex}& & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{ Central channel: $\widetilde{\abs{\eta}}<0.9$ }\\
200 & 35 & 410 & $8.5\pm1.0$ & $128\pm5\pm25$~~~         & 105 & $-1.0$~~ & ~~$53\pm21$ & 0.04         \\
250 & 35 & 410 & $8.5\pm1.0$ & $128\pm5\pm25$~~~         & 105 & $-1.0$~~ & $252\pm24$  & 0.58         \\
300 & 50 & 470 & $4.2\pm0.5$ & ~~$39.9\pm2.9\pm8.3$~~  &  27 & $-1.5$~~ & $153\pm11$  & 0.98         \\
350 & 50 & 490 & $4.0\pm0.5$ & ~~$34.6\pm2.7\pm7.1$~~  &  25 & $-1.2$~~ & $92.4\pm5.6$    & 1.45         \\
400 & 65 & 680 & $0.9\pm0.2$ & ~~~~$7.2\pm1.2\pm1.7$~~ &   4 & $-1.0$~~ & $28.4\pm2.1$    & 1.00         \\
450 & 65 & 700 & $0.8\pm0.2$ & ~~~~$6.3\pm1.1\pm1.6$~~ &   4 & $-0.8$~~ & $17.3\pm1.1$    & 1.27         \\
500 & 65 & 770 & $0.5\pm0.2$ & ~~~~$3.2\pm0.8\pm0.8$~~ &   4 & $+0.5$~~ & ~~$9.8\pm0.6$   & 1.43        \\
550 & 65 & 800 & $0.4\pm0.1$ & ~~~~$2.7\pm0.8\pm0.6$~~ &   4 & $+0.7$~~ & ~~$6.1\pm0.3$   & 1.71         \\
600 & 65 & 850 & $0.2\pm0.1$ & ~~~~$1.8\pm0.6\pm0.4$~~ &   3 & $+0.9$~~ & ~~$3.6\pm0.2$   & 1.85         \\
650 & 65 & 850 & $0.2\pm0.1$ & ~~~~$1.8\pm0.6\pm0.4$~~ &   3 & $+0.9$~~ & ~~$2.2\pm0.1$   & 1.99         \\
700 & 85 & 850 & $0.1\pm0.1$ & ~~~~$1.1\pm0.5\pm0.3$~~ &   2 & $+0.8$~~ & ~~$1.3\pm0.1$   & 2.02         \\
750 & 85 & 850 & $0.1\pm0.1$ & ~~~~$1.1\pm0.5\pm0.3$~~ &   2 & $+0.8$~~ & ~~$0.8\pm0.1$   & 2.20         \\
800 & 85 & 850 & $0.1\pm0.1$ & ~~~~$1.1\pm0.5\pm0.3$~~ &   2 & $+0.8$~~ & ~~$0.5\pm0.1$   & 2.80        \\
\hline
\rule[\baselineskip]{0pt}{2.5ex}& & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{ Forward channel: $\widetilde{\abs{\eta}}\ge0.9$ }\\
200 & 35 & 410 & $4.2\pm0.5$ & $72\pm4\pm15$~          & 87 & $+1.1$~~ &  ~~---        & ---          \\
250 & 35 & 410 & $4.2\pm0.5$ & $72\pm4\pm15$~          & 87 & $+1.1$~~ & ~~$50\pm11$    & 0.11          \\
300 & 50 & 470 & $1.8\pm0.3$ & ~~$20.3\pm2.2\pm3.9$~~  & 23 & $+0.5$~~ & $33.4\pm5.2$       & 0.21          \\
350 & 50 & 490 & $1.7\pm0.3$ & ~~$18.2\pm2.0\pm3.5$~~  & 19 & $+0.2$~~ & $18.5\pm2.5$       & 0.29          \\
400 & 65 & 680 & $0.7\pm0.2$ & ~~~~$2.7\pm0.7\pm0.6$~~ &  1 & $-0.9$~~ & ~~$6.1\pm1.0$      & 0.21          \\
450 & 65 & 700 & $0.7\pm0.2$ & ~~~~$2.3\pm0.6\pm0.4$~~ &  1 & $-0.7$~~ & ~~$3.8\pm0.5$      & 0.28          \\
500 & 65 & 770 & $0.5\pm0.1$ & ~~~~$1.2\pm0.4\pm0.2$~~ &  1 &    0.0~~ & ~~$1.6\pm0.2$      & 0.24    \\
550 & 65 & 800 & $0.4\pm0.1$ & ~~~~$0.9\pm0.4\pm0.2$~~ &  1 & $+0.3$~~ & ~~$1.2\pm0.2$      & 0.32          \\
600 & 65 & 850 & $0.3\pm0.1$ & ~~~~$0.6\pm0.3\pm0.1$~~ &  1 & $+0.6$~~ & ~~$0.6\pm0.1$      & 0.29          \\
650 & 65 & 850 & $0.3\pm0.1$ & ~~~~$0.6\pm0.3\pm0.1$~~ &  1 & $+0.6$~~ & ~~$0.3\pm0.1$      & 0.26          \\
700 & 85 & 850 & $0.1\pm0.1$ & ~~~~$0.4\pm0.2\pm0.1$~~ &  0 & $-0.4$~~ & ~~$0.2\pm0.1$      & 0.28          \\
750 & 85 & 850 & $0.1\pm0.1$ & ~~~~$0.4\pm0.2\pm0.1$~~ &  0 & $-0.4$~~ & ~~$0.1\pm0.1$      & 0.35          \\
800 & 85 & 850 & $0.1\pm0.1$ & ~~~~$0.4\pm0.2\pm0.1$~~ &  0 & $-0.4$~~ & ~~$0.1\pm0.1$      & 0.36          \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\topcaption{Category B search results for the four $\pt^\tau$ search regions of the $\mu\tauh$ channel.
All expected values for background and signal processes ($\LQt$ masses indicated in parentheses) are reported with the corresponding statistical and systematic uncertainties.
The expected signal efficiency $\epsilon_{\LQt}$ at a given $\LQt$ mass is determined with respect to the total number of expected $\LQt$ signal events at $\sqrt{s}=8$\TeV with a $\mu\tauh$ pair of any charge combination, and
$\epsilon_{\LQt}$ is reported separately for opposite-sign (OS) and same-sign (SS) $\mu\tauh$ events. }\label{SignalRegionResultsTableOS}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{%
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{tabular}{ c | l l l l c c}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ Process} & \multirow{2}{*}{~~$\pt^\tau<60$\GeV} & \multirow{2}{*}{$60 < \pt^\tau < 120$\GeV} & \multirow{2}{*}{$120 < \pt^\tau < 200$\GeV} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\pt^\tau > 200$\GeV} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\epsilon_{\LQt}$ (\%)} \\
 &  &  &  &  & OS &  SS \\
\hline
$\LQt$ (200\GeV) & ~~~~~$21\pm12^{+7}_{-2}$      & ~~~~$0.0\pm 0.1\pm0.0$        & ~~~~~$0.0\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & $0.0\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & 0.01 & 0   \\
$\LQt$ (250\GeV) & ~~$31.0\pm8.2^{+6.6}_{-3.4}$  & ~~$13.1\pm5.5^{+1.1}_{-2.9}$  & ~~~~~$0.0\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & $0.0\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & 0.09 & 0.02\\
$\LQt$ (300\GeV) & ~~$33.1\pm5.3^{+2.8}_{-3.8}$  & ~~$24.6\pm4.6^{+2.8}_{-2.1}$  & ~~~~~$7.6\pm2.6^{+1.1}_{-1.7}$ & $3.9\pm1.8^{+0.9}_{-0.3}$ & 0.35 & 0.08\\
$\LQt$ (350\GeV) & ~~$18.1\pm2.6^{+1.8}_{-1.4}$  & ~~$13.3\pm2.2^{+1.0}_{-1.1}$  & ~~~~~$7.2\pm1.6^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ & $2.9\pm0.9^{+0.5}_{-1.4}$ & 0.57 & 0.08\\
$\LQt$ (400\GeV) & ~~$13.9\pm1.4^{+1.1}_{-2.6}$  & ~~$13.4\pm1.4^{+1.0}_{-1.1}$  & ~~~~~$7.8\pm1.1^{+0.8}_{-0.6}$ & $4.1\pm0.8^{+0.6}_{-0.8}$ & 1.30 & 0.12\\
$\LQt$ (450\GeV) & ~~$10.1\pm0.9^{+0.8}_{-1.9}$  & ~~~~$8.6\pm0.8^{+0.8}_{-0.8}$ & ~~~~~$7.1\pm0.7^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$ & $5.8\pm0.6^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$ & 2.05 & 0.27\\
$\LQt$ (500\GeV) & ~~~~$5.2\pm0.4^{+0.5}_{-0.9}$ & ~~~~$6.0\pm0.5\pm0.5$         & ~~~~~$5.3\pm0.4^{+0.4}_{-0.5}$ & $4.4\pm0.4^{+0.7}_{-0.5}$ & 2.75 & 0.27\\
$\LQt$ (550\GeV) & ~~~~$3.2\pm0.3^{+0.3}_{-0.6}$ & ~~~~$4.4\pm0.3^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$ & ~~~~~$4.3\pm0.3^{+0.5}_{-0.4}$ & $4.0\pm0.3\pm0.4$         & 4.04 & 0.36\\
$\LQt$ (600\GeV) & ~~~~$2.0\pm0.1^{+0.2}_{-0.5}$ & ~~~~$2.7\pm0.2\pm0.2$         & ~~~~~$2.7\pm0.2\pm0.2$         & $3.5\pm0.2\pm0.4$         & 5.11 & 0.43\\
$\LQt$ (650\GeV) & ~~~~$1.3\pm0.1^{+0.1}_{-0.3}$ & ~~~~$1.8\pm0.1^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ & ~~~~~$2.0\pm0.1\pm 0.2$        & $2.5\pm0.1^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ & 6.07 & 0.67\\
$\LQt$ (700\GeV) & ~~~~$0.7\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & ~~~~$1.1\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & ~~~~~$1.1\pm0.1\pm 0.1$        & $1.6\pm0.1^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ & 6.66 & 0.57\\
$\LQt$ (750\GeV) & ~~~~$0.4\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & ~~~~$0.5\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & ~~~~~$0.7\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & $1.1\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & 6.71 & 0.59\\
$\LQt$ (800\GeV) & ~~~~$0.2\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & ~~~~$0.4\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & ~~~~~$0.5\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & $0.8\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & 7.77 & 0.61\\
\hline
$\ttbar$+jets & ~~$29.9\pm2.9^{+7.3}_{-7.2}$  & ~~~~$8.8\pm1.3^{+3.2}_{-3.4}$  & ~~~~~$1.7\pm0.6^{+0.6}_{-0.6}$ & $0.4\pm0.3^{+0.9}_{-0.4}$ \\
W+jets                & ~~~~$7.4\pm1.7^{+5.1}_{-5.1}$ & ~~~~$0.6\pm0.5\pm0.6$          & ~~~~~$0.0\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & $0.4\pm0.4\pm0.4$         \\
DY+jets               & ~~~~$4.8\pm0.7\pm2.5$         & ~~~~$1.8\pm0.4^{+1.1}_{-0.9}$  & ~~~~~$0.5\pm0.2\pm0.3$         & $0.4\pm0.2\pm0.2$         \\
Other backgrounds      & ~~~~$3.1\pm0.9^{+1.8}_{-1.9}$ & ~~~~$0.2\pm0.1^{+0.8}_{-0.3}$  & ~~~~~$0.2\pm0.1\pm0.4$         & $0.1\pm0.1^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ \\
\hline
Total $N_\text{Bkg}^\text{Exp}$ & ~~$45.2\pm3.5^{+9.4}_{-9.3}$  & ~~$11.5\pm1.4^{+3.4}_{-3.6}$  & ~~~~~$2.5\pm0.6\pm0.8$  &  $1.2\pm0.5^{+1.0}_{-0.6}$ \\
$N^\text{Obs}$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{44} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{15} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{0}\\
Z-score & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-0.1~~$}   &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$+0.7~~$}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$+0.8~~$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-1.0~~$} & \\
\hline\end{tabular}}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\topcaption{Category B search results for the four $\pt^\tau$ search regions of the $\Pe\tauh$ channel.
All expected values for background and signal processes ($\LQt$ masses indicated in parentheses) are reported with the corresponding statistical and systematic uncertainties.
The expected signal efficiency $\epsilon_{\LQt}$ at a given $\LQt$ mass is determined with respect to the total number of expected $\LQt$ signal events at $\sqrt{s}=8$\TeV with an $\Pe\tauh$ pair of any charge combination.}
\label{SignalRegionResultsTableOSele}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{%
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{tabular}{ c | l l l l c}
\hline
 Process & ~~$\pt^\tau < 60$\GeV & $60 < \pt^\tau < 120$\GeV & $120 < \pt^\tau < 200$\GeV & $\pt^\tau > 200$\GeV & $\epsilon_{\LQt}$ \\
\hline
$\LQt$ (200\GeV) & ~~~~~$32\pm19^{+6}_{-4}$      & ~~~~~$0.1\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & ~~~~~$0.0\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & $0.0\pm0.1\pm0.1$ & 0.02\\
$\LQt$ (250\GeV) & ~~$33.3\pm8.7^{+8.2}_{-5.8}$  & ~~~$11.9\pm5.3^{+2.6}_{-2.4}$  & ~~~~~$0.0\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & $0.0\pm0.1\pm0.1$ & 0.16\\
$\LQt$ (300\GeV) & ~~$31.9\pm5.2^{+3.2}_{-9.1}$  & ~~~$27.7\pm4.6^{+3.9}_{-4.4}$  & ~~~~~$4.2\pm1.9^{+1.1}_{-0.3}$ & $2.7\pm1.6^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$ & 0.70\\
$\LQt$ (350\GeV) & ~~$19.6\pm2.6^{+2.7}_{-3.6}$  & ~~~$19.6\pm2.5^{+2.0}_{-2.1}$  & ~~~~~$8.6\pm1.7^{+1.4}_{-0.8}$ & $4.7\pm1.3\pm0.5$ & 1.35\\
$\LQt$ (400\GeV) & ~~$12.7\pm1.4^{+1.7}_{-2.6}$  & ~~~$14.6\pm1.5^{+2.0}_{-1.4}$  & ~~~~~$8.1\pm1.1^{+1.2}_{-1.3}$ & $4.8\pm0.9^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$ & 2.22\\
$\LQt$ (450\GeV) & ~~~~$7.8\pm0.7^{+1.3}_{-1.4}$ & ~~~$10.1\pm0.9^{+0.9}_{-1.1}$  & ~~~~~$7.2\pm0.7^{+1.0}_{-0.7}$ & $5.5\pm0.6^{+0.6}_{-0.8}$ & 3.65\\
$\LQt$ (500\GeV) & ~~~~$4.8\pm0.4^{+0.5}_{-1.2}$ & ~~~~~$7.3\pm0.5^{+0.8}_{-0.9}$ & ~~~~~$5.5\pm0.4\pm0.6$         & $5.2\pm0.4^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$&5.34 \\
$\LQt$ (550\GeV) & ~~~~$3.3\pm0.2^{+0.4}_{-1.0}$ & ~~~~~$4.3\pm0.3\pm0.4$         & ~~~~~$4.4\pm0.3\pm0.4$         & $4.3\pm0.3\pm0.5$ & 7.28\\
$\LQt$ (600\GeV) & ~~~~$1.9\pm0.1^{+0.2}_{-0.6}$ & ~~~~~$2.9\pm0.2\pm0.3$         & ~~~~~$3.2\pm0.2\pm0.3$         & $3.6\pm0.2\pm0.4$ & 9.61\\
$\LQt$ (650\GeV) & ~~~~$1.2\pm0.1^{+0.1}_{-0.4}$ & ~~~~~$1.8\pm0.1\pm0.2$         & ~~~~~$2.0\pm0.1\pm0.2$         & $2.4\pm0.1^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$& 10.89 \\
$\LQt$ (700\GeV) & ~~~~$0.7\pm0.1^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ & ~~~~~$1.1\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & ~~~~~$1.5\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & $1.9\pm0.1\pm0.2$ & 13.11\\
$\LQt$ (750\GeV) & ~~~~$0.4\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & ~~~~~$0.7\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & ~~~~~$0.7\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & $1.4\pm0.1^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$&13.84 \\
$\LQt$ (800\GeV) & ~~~~$0.2\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & ~~~~~$0.4\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & ~~~~~$0.5\pm0.1\pm0.1$         & $0.9\pm0.1\pm0.1$ &14.82\\
\hline
$\ttbar$+jets & ~~$27.7\pm2.4\pm7.7$          & ~~~~~$7.5\pm1.2^{+2.1}_{-2.8}$ & ~~~~~$0.9\pm0.4\pm0.3$ & $0.1\pm0.1^{+0.6}_{-0.1}$ & \\
W+jets                & ~~~~$8.5\pm1.8^{+5.3}_{-5.4}$ & ~~~~~$1.1\pm0.6^{+0.6}_{-0.7}$ & ~~~~~$0.0\pm0.1\pm0.1$ & $0.0\pm0.1\pm0.1$ & \\
DY+jets               & ~~~~$4.4\pm0.7^{+2.3}_{-2.4}$ & ~~~~~$1.4\pm0.4^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ & ~~~~~$0.6\pm0.2\pm0.3$ & $0.2\pm0.1\pm0.1$ & \\
Other backgrounds     & ~~~~$3.5\pm1.0^{+2.5}_{-3.0}$ & ~~~~~$1.1\pm0.5^{+0.7}_{-0.8}$ & ~~~~~$0.2\pm0.1\pm0.2$ & $0.4\pm0.3\pm0.2$ & \\
\hline
Total $N_\text{Bkg}^\text{Exp}$ & ~~$44.1\pm3.2^{+10.0}_{-10.1}$ & ~~~$11.0\pm1.5^{+2.5}_{-3.1}$ & ~~~~~$1.6\pm0.5\pm0.5$ & $0.7\pm0.4^{+0.7}_{-0.3}$ \\
& & & & &\\[-2ex]
$N^\text{Obs}$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{53} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{5} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{1}\\
Z-score & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$+0.8~~$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-1.2~~$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$+1.1~~$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$+0.1~~$} & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{Plots_paper_Overflow/HalilMainCatACentralChannelST.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{Plots_paper_Overflow/HalilMainCatAForwardChannelST.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{Plots_paper_Overflow/HalilMainCatACentralChannelTAUPT.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{Plots_paper_Overflow/HalilMainCatAForwardChannelTAUPT.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{Plots_paper_Overflow/HalilMainCatACentralChannelJETN.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{Plots_paper_Overflow/HalilMainCatAForwardChannelJETN.pdf}
\caption{The $\ST$, $\tau$ lepton $\pt$, and jet multiplicity distributions in the signal region of category A for central (left column) and forward (right column) channels, using the optimized selection for $M_{\LQt}=200$\GeV (all other optimized selection criteria yield events that are a subset of this selection).
The rightmost bin of each distribution includes overflow and no statistically significant excess is observed in the suppressed bins.
The systematic uncertainty for each bin of these distributions is determined independently.
Shaded regions in the histograms represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background expectation.
The Z-score distribution is provided at the bottom of each plot.
\label{DATASignalRegionPlots}}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{Plots_paper_Overflow/Theta_Main_Muon_pT_Tau.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{Plots_paper_Overflow/Theta_Main_Electron_pT_Tau.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{Plots_paper_Overflow/Theta_Main_Muon_HT_ly.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{Plots_paper_Overflow/Theta_Main_HT_ly.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{Plots_paper_Overflow/Theta_Main_Muon_NJets30.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{Plots_paper_Overflow/Theta_Main_Jets_NJets30.pdf}
{\caption{The leading $\tau$ lepton $\pt$, $\ST$, and jet multiplicity distributions in the signal region of category B for $\mu\tauh$ (left column) and $\Pe\tauh$ (right column) channels.
The rightmost bin of each distribution includes overflow and no statistically significant excess is observed in the suppressed bins.
Shaded regions in the histograms represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background expectation.
The Z-score distribution is provided at the bottom of each plot.
The four regions of the $\tau$ lepton $\pt$ correspond to the four search regions.}\label{DATASignalRegionPlotsOS}}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth]{LimitPlots/PaperStyle_LimitPlot_CatA_Fix_vFR2.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth]{LimitPlots/PaperStyle_LimitPlot_CatB_vFR2.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth]{LimitPlots/PaperStyle_LimitPlot_Combined_vFR2.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth]{LimitPlots/PaperStyle_LimitPlot_Combined_BetavsMass_vFR2.pdf}
{\caption{The expected and observed exclusion limits at 95\% CL on the $\LQt$ pair production cross section times $\beta^{2}$ in category A (upper left), category B (upper right) and the combination of the two categories (lower left).
The theoretical uncertainty in the LQ pair production cross section includes the PDF and renormalization/factorization scale uncertainties as prescribed in Ref.~\cite{Kramer}.
The expected and observed limits on the LQ branching fraction $\beta$ as a function of the LQ mass (lower right).
The total excluded region (shaded) is obtained by including the results in Ref.~\cite{Khachatryan:2015wza}, reinterpreted for the $\LQt\to \PQb\nu$ scenario.
}\label{DATAlimitPlots}}
\end{figure}

\clearpage
\section{Summary \label{Conclusions}}

A search for pair produced, charge $-1/3$, third-generation scalar leptoquarks decaying to top quark and $\tau$ lepton pairs has been conducted in the $\ell\tauh$ channel with two or more jets, using a proton-proton collisions data sample collected with the CMS detector at $\sqrt{s}=8$\TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7\fbinv.
No statistically significant excess is observed over the SM background expectations.
Assuming that all leptoquarks decay to a top quark and a $\tau$ lepton, the pair production of charge $-1/3$, third-generation scalar leptoquarks is excluded at 95\% CL for masses up to 685\GeV (695\GeV expected).
This constitutes the first direct result for leptoquarks decaying in this channel, and the mass limit is also directly applicable to pair produced bottom squarks decaying via the RPV coupling $\lambda_{333}^{\prime}$.

\begin{acknowledgments}
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 centers 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: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); MoER, ERC IUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NIH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); CINVESTAV, CONACYT, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS and RFBR (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI and CPAN (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).

Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the European Research Council and EPLANET (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 \`a la Recherche dans l'Industrie et dans l'Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund; the Compagnia di San Paolo (Torino); the Consorzio per la Fisica (Trieste); MIUR project 20108T4XTM (Italy); the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; and the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund.
\end{acknowledgments}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


text:
Big Ten Tournament Odds, Tips & Best Bets To Win 2021 Title
By David Caraviello | Mar 8th, 2021 12:30 PM EST | 4 mins
44 PLAYERS REDEEMED TODAY!
Illinois hasn't been this good in basketball since the days of Deron Williams and Dee Brown. The Fighting Illini are on track to be a No. 1 seed in the NCAA Tournament, probably no matter what happens at this week's Big Ten tournament in Indianapolis.
Illinois won 11 of its last 12 regular-season games, a run that included a 23-point romp at Michigan, another Big Ten team in line for a top seed in the Big Dance. Illinois won more games than anyone else in the nation's best conference — but was relegated to the No. 2 tournament seed because the Wolverines, shut down for a month because of COVID-19 protocols, had a better winning percentage.
Don't let that distinction fool you in March Madness betting. Behind a tremendous inside-outside game, the Illini are loaded, and more than capable of cutting down the nets in Indianapolis — not just once, but twice.
RELATED: Check out our college basketball expert picks.
Latest Big Ten Tournament Odds
Michigan +175
Illinois +375
Iowa +425
Purdue +500
Ohio State +685
Wisconsin +1100
Michigan State +5000
Maryland +6500
Indiana +8000
Minnesota +10000
Northwestern +15000
Penn State +20000
Nebraska +100000
College basketball futures odds via DraftKings are current as of publication but subject to change. Rutgers is not included at New Jersey sportsbooks.
Will Illinois Win Big Ten Tournament?
The math here is pretty straightforward. Illinois won 16 times in Big Ten play, at least two more than anyone else. In the last meeting against Michigan, the Illini hammered them in Ann Arbor. And they present tournament championship college basketball betting odds of +375 that would command any bettor's attention.
Compare that to top seed and college basketball odds favorite Michigan, at +175. The Wolverines got nearly a month of rest when Michigan shut down athletic activities in January, but Illinois is on the better side of the tournament bracket. Ohio State, the league's third-best team for most of the season, is on Michigan's side, as are rejuvenated Michigan State and capable Purdue.
Could Michigan win the thing? Certainly. But Illinois' track record late this season, compared with their far more valuable odds and easier tournament road, makes Illinois the better bet.
Is Indiana A Good Big Ten Tournament Longshot Bet?
Hey, if you bleed crimson and cream, go for it. But if you're using any sense, no way. The Hoosiers cratered at the end of the regular season, dropping eight of 11 including the last five to finish with a losing record. Head coach Archie Miller might be on the way out. Indiana is the No. 10 seed in Indianapolis and will be fortunate to win one game. Those +8000 odds may dazzle you, but don't be fooled — this is a bad team showing barely a pulse, much less signs of going on a miracle run.
Other Teams To Consider
Michigan State: If you're going to take a flier, the +5000 Spartans are the team to choose. Michigan State has likely played its way back into the NCAA Tournament field by winning five of seven — a run that includes Ws over Illinois, Michigan and Ohio State. This is an elite program with a great coach and the Spartans are starting to put the pieces together, which makes them dangerous.
Iowa: While the +425 Hawkeyes don't have the overall talent of Illinois or Michigan, they do have a national player of the year candidate in center Luka Garza, averaging a league-best 23.8 points per game. They're also coming in hot, having won seven of eight to close the regular season.
RELATED: The Latest Wooden Award Betting Odds
Ohio State: The +685 Buckeyes were right there with Michigan and Illinois until suffering a four-game skid to end the regular season. The Buckeyes just couldn't hit shots down the stretch. But they squandered late leads in two of those games and could be a dangerous No. 5 seed if the offense returns to form.
David Caraviello
More About David
Veteran sports journalist David Caraviello has covered college football, college basketball, motorsports and golf, covering all three US golf majors, the Daytona 500 and SEC football.
Top Sportsbook See All
21+ Terms and Conditions Apply

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Manual 4! SHARP AQUOS LC26E8B 26V View and Download Sharp Aquos LC40LE820M user manual online. Aquos LC40LE820M LCD TV pdf manual download. Also for: Aquos lc46le820m, Aquos lc Sharp aquos tv and remote are locked Answered by a verified TV Technician. sharp aquos lc70le732unmcti. Search results on Sharp site could not generate an owner's manual for download.
The player is locked and will not respond to sharp aquos lc26e8b 26v m 250sharp 26v aquos lc26e8b aquos lc32e8 LC32E8 2010 12 Apr. 11, 2017 The manual of how to view the contents of the lecture recording systems (mediasite) has been updated. Oct. 2, 2013 Please 250 SHARP 26V AQUOS LC26E8B Remote controllers Consumable Goods Various Parts TV Audio Camera 60items Category includes a wide selection of products at affordable prices delivered to you from Japan.


text:
Llewelyn Williams ( * 1901 - 1984 ) fue un botánico de origen galés, nacionalizado estadounidense, especializado en economía, tecnologías del algodón, y una autoridad en plantas productoras de látex usado comercialmente para goma y caucho.

Nació en Conway, Gales, obteniendo su B.Sc. en 1924, el M.Sc. en 1935, y su D.Sc. en 1963 en la Universidad de Gales, especializándose en maderas tropicales americanas y productos forestales. En 1928 realiza estudios de postgraduado con el Dr. Samuel J. Record, de la Yale University Escuela de Forestales. En el curso de su carrera recolectó u estudió plantas de látex y otros recursos forestales de regiones tropicales del mundo para propósitos científicos y comerciales. Condujo extensas investigaciones a campo en el Amazonas, Caura, y la cuenca del río Orinoco, y otros ríos del norte de Sudamérica, y más tarde realizó viajes a África, Sudeste asiático, India, Filipinas.

De 1924 a 1926 manejó una granja de tés de 285 ha en Assam, India antes de recibir el cargo de Dendrólogo en el "Museo de Campo de Historia Natural de Chicago, Illinois". Su carrera en el Museo transcurrió por 26 años: de 1926 a 1952, llegando a Curador de Botánica Económica desde 1938. Durante ese tiempo tuvo varias asignaciones como Investigador Botánico para el Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería de Venezuela, de 1938 a 1940; y de 1941 a 1942; y Técnico de Campo Senior de la Agencia gubernamental: "Rubber Development Corporation", de 1942 a 1945. Esta última asignación fue por la emergencia de la segunda guerra mundial con su Proyecto de localizar y extraer goma y caucho de Hevea en el Valle Superior del río Orinoco.

Luego de la guerra condujo trabajos de campo, de 1945 a 1955 para la "Dreyfus Corporation", una subsidiaria de "Wrigley Chewing Gum Co.", para localizar fuentes naturales de gomas, caucho, resinas, ceras en bosques tropicales. Permaneció como consultor para la Wrigley Co. en productos forestales tropicales de 1956 a 1960. En 1961, el USDA lo recluta al Dr. Williams como "Senior Economic Botanist", en la "Crops Research Division", realizando investigaciones de 1963 a 1967 sobre los efectos defoliantes de químicos con el "USDA Agricultural Research Service" con contrato con la "Agencia de Proyectos Avanzados de Investigaciones (del Dto. de Defensa). El Dr. Williams condujo un intenso estudio de las zonas forestales y de agricultura, incluyendo reconocimiento aéreo, en Tailandia y en otros países del Sudeste Asiático, publicando un estudio comparativo de "Forests of Southeast Asia, Puerto Rico, and Texas" de 1967. En 1966 participa de un Proyecto USDA bajo los auspicios del "International Agricultural Development Service" para evaluar los recursos agrícolas y forestales en la República de Dahomey, África.

Poseyó una importante documentación fotográfica, amasando una sustancial colección de fotos documentando la extracción y procesado de gomas, cauchos, resinas, y otros materiales de plantas tropicales. Publicó centenares de artículos científicos y reportes industriales sobre especies maderables.

Fue miembro de "International Association of Wood Anatomists" desde su fundación en 1930, y secretario de la "Society for Economic Botany". El Dr. Williams falleció en 1980, a los 79.

Algunas publicaciones
 Williams, Ll. 1936.  Woods of northeastern Peru. Fieldiana. Botany. vol. 15 Series: Publication / Field museum of natural history ; v. 377.
 ----. 1937. Tea. Botany 21. Chicago :Field Museum of Natural History

Libros
 Williams, Ll. 1942.  Exploraciones Botánicas Guayana Venezuela. 466 pp. 53 ilustr. SERVICIO BOTÁNICO MINISTERIO DE AGRICULTURA Y CRÍA. Caracas
 ----. 1965. Vegetation of Southeast Asia, studies of forest types, 1963-1965. U.S. Agricultural Research Service (Washington). ix + 302 pp.
 ----. 1974. Thailand current and potential crops, an evaluation of germplasm requirements. Dept. of State, Agency for International Development (Washington). iv + 340 pp.

Referencias
 Extensa biografía y foto

Enlaces externos

Botánicos de Estados Unidos
Agrónomos de Estados Unidos

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Overlander är ett datorspel utvecklat och utgivet av Elite Systems 1988.

Handling
Overlander utspelas i en framtida värld där jorden har blivit ödelagd av UV-strålning, på grund av att freon som strömmat ut från sprayburkar har förstört ozonlagret. I denna värld bor mänskligheten i städer under jorden och den enda kommunikation man har går via de gamla motorvägarna, där rövare härskar. De enda som vågar färdas där är "Overlanders" i sina fordon. Man spelar som en Overlander och ens uppdrag är att föra varor i sin bil mellan olika destinationer medan rövare kommer att försöka stoppa en. För de pengar man får av uppdragsgivare kan man inhandla bensin och köpa extrautrustning till sin bil som till exempel vapen, pansar, turbo och superbromsar.

Mottagande
ACE som testade Atari ST-versionen skrev: "Den grafiska kvaliteten på den rörliga vägbanan liknar den i Out Run", och gav spelet 832/1000 i betyg. Svenska Hemdatornytt som testade Amigaversionen tyckte att spelet inte tillförde så värst mycket, och gav det 55/100 i medelvärde. Datormagazin som testade Amigaversionen ansåg att det var ett riktigt kul bilspel med fin och snabb grafik och att ljudet nådde upp till den nivå man kan kräva av ett bilspel, och gav spelet 7/10 i betyg.

Referenser

Externa länkar

Datorspel 1988
Amigaspel
Amstrad CPC-spel
Atari ST-spel
C64-spel
ZX Spectrum-spel
Racingspel


Mortal Kombat 9 Guide, walkthrough , cheat codes, hints and secrets.
» Mortal Kombat 9 Guide, walkthrough , cheat codes, hints and secrets.
After centuries of Mortal Kombat, Emperor Shao Kahn has finally defeated Raiden and his allies. Faced with extinction, Raiden has one last chance. To undo the Emperor's victory, he must strike Shao Kahn where he is vulnerable... The Past. With a return to the mature presentation and classic 2D fighting plane, Mortal Kombat is the most accessible and competitive MK game to date, coming soon to the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. Mortal Kombat further extends the brutal experience with a visually striking story mode that will rewrite the ancient history of the Mortal Kombat Tournament.
Playable Confirmed: Raiden, Sub-Zero, Scorpion, Reptile, Ermac, Sektor, Cyrax, Johnny Cage, Jax, Liu Kang, Kung Lao, Mileena, Jade, Kitana, Sindel, Sonya ,Baraka, NightWolf, Quanchi, Shangtsung, Kano, Noob Saibot stryker, Kabal Smoke Cyber Sub-zero, Sheeva and Kratos Confirm Exclusive for Ps3 Version.
Final Boss : Shao Kahn.
The Armory, , The Bell Tower , The Bridge (Stage Fatality) , The Cathedral , The Courtyard , Dead Pool (Stage Fatality) , The Tower , Goro's Lair , The Graveyard , Kahn's Colosseum , Kratos' Arena (Playstation 3 exclusive) (Stage Fatality) , The Living Forest (Stage Fatality) , The Desert , Hell (Stage Fatality) , The Pit II (Stage Fatality) , The Pit II Bottom, The Rooftop , Shang Tsung's Gardens (between Pit I, Palace Gates and Warrior Shrine) , Shang Tsung's Flesh Pits , Shao Kahn's Throne Room , Soul Chamber , The Subway (Stage Fatality) , Throne Room , Training Dojo , Wastelands of Outworld.
To unlock Cyber Sub-Zero and Quan Chi, you will need to complete Story mode's 16 chapters. (Finishing Chapter 12 unlocks Cyber Sub-Zero and completing Chapter 16 unlocks Quan Chi.) Each chapter allows you to use a different character, and there are sections of Story mode that follow the timelines for the original Mortal Kombat, Mortal Kombat II, and Mortal Kombat 3, with a hint of what is to come at the end.Most of Story mode is pretty straightforward, but there will be a few instances where you will have to fight as yourself against multiple characters. Conserve your energy and remember, fighting against a computer opponent is very different from fighting against a human. Repetition always works better against artificial intelligence, so keep that in mind! Story Mode Chapters Mortal Kombat timeline.
Misc : Motaro killed by Raiden in story Mode.


text:
IAP Home
Statements Statements
Statements Overview
News and e-Bulletin
IAP-S
IAP for Science
c/o ICTP Campus (Adriatico Guesthouse - 7th Floor) Strada Costiera 11 Trieste 34151 Italy
Phone 1 +39 402240680
Contacts6
Updates0
Items of Interest6
Giovanni Ortolani
Communications Assistant
Katharina Nordhaus
Peter McGrath
Muthoni E. Kareithi
VA(+39) 0402240681
Sabina Caris
Improving Scientific Input to Global Policymaking with a focus on the UN Sustainable Development Goals
IAP Executive Committee
Since 1993, IAP for Science, previously known up to now as the InterAcademy Panel, has harnessed the power found in the world's scientific community to address global challenges and create contribute to a more successful world.
IAP Science brings together 107 member academies to advise the global public and decision-makers on the scientific aspects of critical global issues, such as poverty, sustainable development, climate change, biotechnology and global health. It also works to improve science education and scientific literacy in member countries across the globe.
About IAP
IAP works closely with its member academies to strengthen the role that science plays in society and to advise public officials on the scientific aspects of critical global issues
IAP helps to create science academies in countries where academies do not exist ** and assists young and small academies to become more prominent in their own countries
IAP sponsors programmes for young scientists designed to help them build strong foundations for successful careers and to more effectively engage decision makers
** A set of guidelines are available for the establishment of national science academies. Please contact the IAP Secretariat (iap@twas.org) for a copy of the document.
Primary objectives
Provide high-quality, independent advice on science-related issues to government and society
Develop programmes for scientific capacity building, science education, science communication and other science-related issues of global significance
Lead efforts to forge closer collaboration among science academies and other scientific institutions
Sponsors and funding
IAP, which is located in Trieste, Italy, operates under the administrative umbrella of TWAS. The Government of Italy provides core funding. Member academies provide financial and in-kind contributions to IAP programmatic activities, sponsor IAP events, and host executive committee and general assembly meetings. See: IAP Donors (financial and in-kind).
Information on how to apply for IAP membership is stated in the IAP Statutes (Art. 4) and Rules of Procedure (Art. 1) - see below. Kindly note that the material must be provided in English, (or in the original language with an English translation).
For information on activities implemented by the IAP Membership, see the IAP News e-Bulletin. The purpose of the bulletin is to convey information on science academy activities around the world. Follow the link also for back issues.
An updated IAP Brochure is available for downloading (pdf format with links) - May 2014. Printed copies are available from the IAP Secretariat upon request (iap@twas.org)
IAP in Brief
Comprised of 107 academies
Receives core funding from the Italian government
Hosted by TWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing world
Located in Trieste, Italy
IAP is a global network of the world's science academies, launched in 1993. Its primary goal is to help member academies work together to advise citizens and public officials on the scientific aspects of critical global issues.
IAP is particularly interested in assisting young and small academies achieve these goals and, through the communication links and networks created by IAP activities, all academies will be able to raise both their public profile among citizens and their influence among policy makers.
Building Scientific Capacity in Africa
Authoring Institution
The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) – for the advancement of science in developing countries, ICTP, ICGEB, Organization for Women in Science for the Developing World (OWSD), IAP for Science
TWAS, IAP, ICTP, ICGEB, OWSD
This report shows how IAP, TWAS, OWSD and other Trieste-based international science institutions contribute to the growth of scientific research, education and expertise in Africa.
IAP Statement on Climate Change and Education
For the remainder of the 21st century and beyond, climate change poses an existential threat to humanity. Decisions on how to tackle the effects of climate change, however, need to be based on sound science and rational judgement. They will also need to be made through the coming years – ...
IAP Statement on Science and Technology for Disaster Risk Reduction
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 , which the world's nations signed up to in March 2015, calls for increased input of science, technology and research to deal with the risks of natural disasters and manage their impacts. Strategies need to be developed to reduce ...
The IAP-Policy Secretariat is hosted by:
The U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. NW
Washington, DC 20001, United States
The IAP-S and IAP-H Secretariat is hosted by:
The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS)
ICTP Campus, c/o TWAS
Strada Costiera 11
34151 Trieste, Italy
iap@twas.org
tstoepler@nas.edu
nward@nas.edu
About Governance Secretariat
Activities Projects Calendar News
Follow Us Subscribe
Powered by MILIU KM. Digital by DIAMAX


Aurelia "Bree" Makena, the Duchess of Danforth, waits on a beach near Port Emnal in front of her three thousand troops. As the waves lap against the hooves of her battle mare, Lioth, Bree watches the enemy ships deploying more warriors against her than she'd ever thought possible. Victory may prove an insurmountable task.
Aurelia "Bree" Makena, the Duchess of Danforth, waits on a beach near Port Emnal in front of her three thousand troops. As the waves lap against the hooves of her battle mare, Lioth, Bree watches the enemy ships deploying more warriors against her than she'd ever thought possible.
Victory may prove an insurmountable task.
But wrestling victory from defeat is only the beginning. The real attack is one that if successful will defeat her Anacafrian king more surely than an arrow driven through his heart.


Every morning I would roll over to get out of bed and my feet would hit the floor, covered with soft mushy rotted carpet. We didn't have a carpet though, it was Annie's dead saggy skin covered in stinky fur. She let it down at night and it covered the entire square footage of our apartment.
The smell was awful and in several spots maggots were growing. Prior to her loosing all of her weight, she lost a shopping cart full of food in multiple rolls of skin, so maggots had formed eating the food and then into Annie's flesh so a fresh swarm of flies flew around her. She looked a little like a pig pen, all she needed was a fence around her but no one had that much fence.
So until Annie woke up we all had to sink our feet into her yucky fur. She said she didn't even feel it because under her fur her skin had grown into a hard callous. She had shaved a few spots on her stomach cleaning off all the fur so she could see the callous. She liked putting her maggots on it so they could eat it. She had a whole website on the internet and a show was in the works to come out on AnnieTV.
Once she woke up, Duh-Wayne would put her skin up into a pony tail and Annie would be able to get around; free of her saggy skin. I still complained. I mean she already smelled like the ground she dug herself out of and now there was a ton of extra skin covered in skanky fur and fat maggots munching on her icky hard scaly epidermis. Even if we weren't always stepping on it we were smelling it as a matter of fact everything was absorbing the smell. I started smelling like her and no amount of baths could get rid of the stink because the source smelt worse daily.
"Annie you need to get rid of your extra skin," I yelled one morning.
Annie was at the table gobbling a serving bowl full of cereal. "Do you really need all that cereal?" I nagged.
"I'm sharing it," she replied letting the milk drip off her spoon slowly pouring it onto a herd of maggots hanging near her left thigh.
Duh-Wayne ran over with a skin brush and comb and began gathering up Annie's skin and making a braid on either side of her head, pulling the rotted maggot infested furry skin tight into big fat long braids. If it wasn't so gross it might have been cute, I mean what is cuter than a cat in braids.
"Annie call your doctor and tell him your sag skin needs to go." I insisted.
Later that afternoon one more time, a camera crew arrived to tape another hour long episode of the reality of Annie's life. It began with Annie talking about her skin and her maggots and how I enabled her and made her life miserable by suggesting she exercise to tighten her skin.
She made arrangements to have her skin removed and told me it would take place the following day. I rolled out of bed early that morning not sure what time Annie had to be in Houston to have her surgery. She hadn't really shared all the details with me. I put my feet down and thought about how I would never have to feel the icky skin carpet on my feet, again, this was the last time.
I cringed as I put my feet down waiting to feel maggots crawl between my toes. I waited and all I felt was floor. I knew Annie was home cause I could hear her snoring loud and obnoxious in her Princess bed. Perhaps she wore her braids to bed.
Another noise was going on as well, a loud loud buzzing. I turned the light on and I could see it shining but it seemed to be blurred out by a black fog, then I got it; Annie's maggots hatched into flies. I opened the window and started fanning them out.
Then I looked at her. Her skin wasn't up in a couple fat braids or a big large pony tail, it was gone along with the maggots. There was no stinky rotting stretched out skin covered with fur, callous' and maggots. Just a pile of bones shaped like a cat.
"Hi Slam," Skeleton Annie said in the bone clicking voice.
Lately, I had been dealing with all kinds of Annie's, a dead dug herself out of the ground Annie, a fat Annie that made out floor weak in several spots, then a saggy skinned Annie covered in rotting maggot callous covered fur and now a talking cat skeleton that still smelled horrible because there were pieces of rotting flesh still hanging on to her. I didn't know which one was worse, I just wanted my cat back. The cat I had before she 'died'.
Why did I have a weird cat, why was this happening to me? Why couldn't I have a regular cat that just laid around sunning herself and licking her fur? Nope, I had to have a talking skeleton cat, who would be in some other form with in the coming days.
"What Slam?" Annie's bone clicking voice asked, I knew her eyes were giving me that questioning look even though I couldn't see them just the boney sockets. She shook her head and her skin fur braids which were somehow weirdly still attached to her head moved as she shook it, a few left over flies flew out and into the room.
Annie Jr. and Grandfather ran after them, Grandfather with a fly swatter and Annie Jr. who had wrapped several fly stickers around himself. I knew it was going to be one of those day. "Got 'em Grandfather," Annie Jr. screamed. "Good job, son," Grandfather yelled clapping his hands and yelling, "Yahoo" like a loud yodeler.
I ignored everyone that whole day, I just sort of kept thinking about Annie, Annie as she was, when we first got her and reviewing all of her life and how much I missed that Annie. The soft little black and white cat that would crawl in my lap sometimes and how her fur smelled and felt when I petted her. I spent the whole day wishing I had her back. I didn't want a bone clacking cat with skin braids. Who had a cat like that? Me. I was such a weirdo. I cried myself to sleep.
The next morning, I woke up and the first thing I noticed was that boney gross smell was out of the house. It smelled like someone cleaned, I could smell the grass fed cow manure scent; Annie's favorite scent for house cleaning. That had was so much better than the rotted flesh smell we had been smelling.
Annie's princess bed was empty but it was clean. The grave slime that had covered it for weeks and weeks was gone. Annie Jr. was sitting in the corner with Janey, they were reading books, Annie Jr with a pair of blue horned rimmed glasses hooked over his ears. Grandfather was cooking breakfast and it smelled great. Everything was peaceful and bright and happy; it was almost eerie and I was frightened.
I poured a cup of coffee, for once it was real coffee and not the sludge Annie was partial to. We had sugar and my favorite creamer. We were always missing one of the three. I sipped it and it tasted wonderful, but I just couldn't enjoy it because I knew.
I took one more sip. "We have to go get Annie," Grandfather announced looking at his cell phone.
"What?" I asked. I knew then this was it. The morning was too pleasant and it was about to go downhill in a handbasket.
"She said bring the cat carrier," Grandfather said still looking at his phone.
Grandfather mentioned a little hill billy town outside the city. What in the world would Annie be doing there and then I remembered, it was Annie.
I zoomed into the bathroom to put my clothes on. I ran a brush through my hair and scrubbed my teeth, then zoomed out of the bathroom to get my shoes. I found Grandfather kneeling on the floor trying to tie the cat carrier together.
"The clamps are gone," he responded.
"Annie said we need to hurry," Grandfather said, putting his phone back in his pocket and grabbing the cat carrier and a bungee cord he was trying to tie it with.
Off we went to the little hill billy town. Grandfather texted Annie to let her know we were there. The next thing we knew, an older guy knocking on the window of our car. "I got ya cat," he said.
He opened the door to a rusted out old red truck and handed me a plastic milk crate with a dish pan over the top. In it was a little black and white kitten. It looked like Annie in the face but had a black beard like Annie Jr and was marked more like Annie Jr.
"That's not my cat," I said.
"You answered a ad for a cat right," he asked.
Then I knew, there wasn't much I could do. I mean who would believe my dead cat had set me up to get a free kitten. 'I hope you got a crate," he said.
"Well sort of," I said.
"She's scared, she will be a bit wild, make sure she doesn't bolt out of the car," this old guy instructed.
I got into our car with the kitten and removed her from the box, and she went crazy. She bit, she scratched, she jumped around the entire vehicle acting like a flying violent winged rabbit. She was all over the place and I was covered in blood. She took a chunk out of one finger. I finally got her and decided to get her back in the milk crate and she went quite willingly. Grandfather promised to return the man's crate and dish pan at a later time.
"Hi Slam," said the cat in the crate.
"Annie?" I said looking at her.
The cat in the box began to laugh her crazy laugh. I looked at her. Granted the eyes were hers but the rest of her looked more like Annie Jr. "How Annie?" I screamed.
I didn't buy any of it. She just somehow turned into a kitten and got her skin back and painted herself so she had more black there was no way she ate a sole or went back through time. At least she didn't stink or have maggots on her.
"Why did you scratch me and bit me like that. My one finger looks infected all ready, it's red and swollen?" I asked.
"I had to make it look real," Annie replied.
So life went back to normal, with a non dead Annie, a smaller blacker Annie, but my Annie. One I could let sit in my lap and one I could pet and snuggle. It didn't matter, I had her back and she was far from dead.
I wondered what happened to the bones. I mean there were two cats. When I went to work however, some of my co workers had come in to decorate for Halloween. Dead Annie was on that committee. Our theme was a coven of witches, I had a witch dress, I had been planning for weeks to wear. I noticed there was a cat skeleton in a cage. My heart beat hard. I knew those sockets. I stayed away and tried to forget and cuddle my little Annie at home.