The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded inclusive leptonic asymmetry. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ < 500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [500,750] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [750,1000] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [1000,1500] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ > 1500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ < 30 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [30,120] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > 120 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 200 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [200,300] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [300,400] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 400 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 20 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [20, 70] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 70 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Expected 95% CL limit on cross section times acceptance times branching ratio for each width and mass of Gaussian signal shape tested, in the region defined by |y*|<0.3.

Observed 95% CL limit on cross section times acceptance times branching ratio for each width and mass of Gaussian signal shape tested, in the region defined by |y*|<0.6.

Expected 95% CL limit on cross section times acceptance times branching ratio for each width and mass of Gaussian signal shape tested, in the region defined by |y*|<0.6.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario.

Upper 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario.

Lower 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL, when moving the nominal signal cross section up by the 1-sigma theoretical uncertainty, in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL, when moving the nominal signal cross section down by the 1-sigma theoretical uncertainty, in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Upper 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Lower 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO) = 150 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL, when moving the nominal signal cross section up by the 1-sigma theoretical uncertainty, in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO) = 150 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL, when moving the nominal signal cross section down by the 1-sigma theoretical uncertainty, in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO) = 150 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO) = 150 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Upper 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO) = 150 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Lower 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO) = 150 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL, when moving the nominal signal cross section up by the 1-sigma theoretical uncertainty, in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL, when moving the nominal signal cross section down by the 1-sigma theoretical uncertainty, in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Upper 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Lower 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL, when moving the nominal signal cross section up by the 1-sigma theoretical uncertainty, in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL, when moving the nominal signal cross section down by the 1-sigma theoretical uncertainty, in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Upper 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Lower 1-sigma expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Signal region (SR) providing the best expected sensitivity in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario. In the case of SRA, the number shown represents the contransverse mass, M(CT), threshold used.

Nominal observed excluded cross sections at 95% CL in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, once corrected by the luminosity and the efficiency times acceptance of the model itself.

Impact of reducing the branching ratios of SBOTTOM --> BOTTOM NEUTRALINO, assuming no sensitivity to the other decay possibilities, in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario. The numbers represent the maximum branching ratio excluded at 95% CL, taking the nominal cross section as reference.

Signal region (SR) providing the best expected sensitivity in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. In the case of SRA, the number shown represents the contransverse mass, M(CT), threshold used.

Signal region (SR) providing the best expected sensitivity in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. In the case of SRA, the number shown represents the contransverse mass, M(CT), threshold used.

Signal region (SR) providing the best expected sensitivity in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. In the case of SRA, the number shown represents the contransverse mass, M(CT), threshold used.

Nominal observed excluded cross sections at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario, once corrected by the luminosity and the efficiency times acceptance of the model itself.

Nominal observed excluded cross sections at 95% CL in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario, once corrected by the luminosity and the efficiency times acceptance of the model itself.

Nominal observed excluded cross sections at 95% CL in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario, once corrected by the luminosity and the efficiency times acceptance of the model itself.

Expected CLs values in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario.

Observed CLs values in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario.

Sbottom signal production cross sections in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane. These values are also used for the stop case since the differences in cross sections for these processes are negligible.

Relative theoretical uncertainties in percent on the sbottom signal production cross sections in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane coming from the usage of different PDF sets and renormalisation and factorisation scales. These values are also used for the stop case since the differences in cross sections for these processes are negligible.

Total number of generated MC events for the sbottom signal grid in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane.

Signal acceptance in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario. All the different "up" values have been added in quadrature. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the sbottom pair production scenario. All the different "down" values have been added in quadrature. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Expected CLs values in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Expected CLs values in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Expected CLs values in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed CLs values in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed CLs values in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Observed CLs values in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario.

Total number of generated MC events for the stop signal grid in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV.

Signal acceptance in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. All the different "up" values have been added in quadrature. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 5 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. All the different "down" values have been added in quadrature. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

.

Signal acceptance in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. All the different "up" values have been added in quadrature. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(STOP), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(CHARGINO)-M(NEUTRALINO) = 20 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. All the different "down" values have been added in quadrature. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total number of generated MC events for the stop signal grid in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV.

Signal acceptance in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. All the different "up" values have been added in quadrature. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the ( M(CHARGINO), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane with M(STOP) = 300 GEV for the stop pair production scenario. All the different "down" values have been added in quadrature. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Distribution of the PT of the leading muon for E-MU events in the Signal Region, before the application of the leading lepton PT cut.

Distribution of the missing ET for all events in the Signal Region.

Distribution of MET-significnce, ie the missing ET/sqrt(scalar sum of PT of all leptons and jets), for all events in the Signal Region.

Distribution of the missing ET for E-E events in the Z Control Region.

Distribution of the missing ET for MU-MU events in the Z Control Region.

Distribution of the missing ET for E-E events in the Top Control Region.

Distribution of the missing ET for E-MU events in the Top Control Region.

Distribution of the missing ET for MU-MU events in the Top Control Region.

Distribution of the Jet Multiplicity for all events in the Top Control Region.

Distribution of the B-Jet Multiplicity for all events in the Top Control Region.

Distribution of the PT of the leading Jet for all events in the Top Control Region.

Distribution of the PT of the leading B-Jet for all events in the Top Control Region.

The second flow harmonic measured with the two-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of >80 GeV.

The second flow harmonic measured with the four-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 25-40 GeV.

The second flow harmonic measured with the four-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 40-55 GeV.

The second flow harmonic measured with the four-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 55-80 GeV.

The second flow harmonic measured with the four-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of >80 GeV.

The second-order harmonic, v2, integrated over pT and eta, calculated with two-particle cumulants as a function of Sum ET^Pb.

The second-order harmonic, v2, integrated over pT and eta, calculated with four-particle cumulants as a function of Sum ET^Pb.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 316.22 < pTjet < 398.10 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 316.22 < pTjet < 398.10 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 316.22 < pTjet < 398.10 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 316.22 < pTjet < 398.10 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 316.22 < pTjet < 398.10 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 316.22 < pTjet < 398.10 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 316.22 < pTjet < 398.10 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 316.22 < pTjet < 398.10 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 398.10 < pTjet < 501.18 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 398.10 < pTjet < 501.18 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 398.10 < pTjet < 501.18 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 398.10 < pTjet < 501.18 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 126.00 < pTjet < 158.49 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 158.49 < pTjet < 199.53 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.0 < eta < 0.3.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 199.53 < pTjet < 251.19 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.3 < eta < 0.8.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.8 < eta < 1.2.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 1.2 < eta < 2.1.

Excess transverse momenta in jet in PbPb compared to pp collisions in different centrality selections for abs(jet rapidity) < 2.1.

The D(z) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

Excess particles in jet in PbPb compared to pp collisions in different centrality selections for abs(jet rapidity) < 2.1.

The D(pT) distributions in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

Ratio of R(D(z)) distributions in a given abs(jet rapidity) region to R(D(z)) for abs(jet rapidity) < 0.3 for 126 < pTJet < 158.5 GeV.

The ratio of the D(z) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

Ratio of R(D(z)) distributions in a given abs(jet rapidity) region to R(D(z)) for abs(jet rapidity) < 0.3 for 158.5 < pTJet < 199.5 GeV.

The ratio of the D(pT) in different centrality intervals in PbPb and in pp for 251.19 < pTjet < 316.22 and 0.0 < eta < 2.1.

Ratio of R(D(z)) distributions in a given abs(jet rapidity) region to R(D(z)) for abs(jet rapidity) < 0.3 for 199.5 < pTJet < 251.8 GeV.

Excess transverse momenta in jet in PbPb compared to pp collisions in different centrality selections for abs(jet rapidity) < 2.1.

Excess particles in jet in PbPb compared to pp collisions in different centrality selections for abs(jet rapidity) < 2.1.

Ratio of R(D(z)) distributions in a given abs(jet rapidity) region to R(D(z)) for abs(jet rapidity) < 0.3 for 126 < pTJet < 158.5 GeV.

Ratio of R(D(z)) distributions in a given abs(jet rapidity) region to R(D(z)) for abs(jet rapidity) < 0.3 for 158.5 < pTJet < 199.5 GeV.

Ratio of R(D(z)) distributions in a given abs(jet rapidity) region to R(D(z)) for abs(jet rapidity) < 0.3 for 199.5 < pTJet < 251.8 GeV.

Pre-fit MC statistical uncertainties per bin. These values are used to quantify the MC statistical uncertainty contributions to the total uncertainty in $m_t$ based on elements from the covariance matrix obtained in the profile likelihood fit. Each MC statistical contribution is estimated by dividing the relevant covariance matrix entry (see Table 2) by the corresponding pre-fit MC statistical uncertainty for that bin.

The contribution of each source of systematic uncertainty to the total uncertainty in $m_t$ is provided. Each source's contribution is taken directly from the relevant element of the covariance matrix for the profile likelihood fit to $\overline{m_J}$, $m_{jj}$, and $m_{tj}$ using data. The sign of the effect of each uncertainty is included.

The fitted $m_t$ is provided for each replica generated using bootstrapping. Each replica is a 3D histogram of $m_{J}$, $m_{jj}$, and $m_{tj}$, where $m_{J}$ has 50 bins between 145.0 GeV and 205.0 GeV. This method uses the BootstrapGenerator class in ROOT to initialise a pseudo-random number generator for each event, which is seeded by the value of the eventNumber and runNumber variables for a given event in the input dataset. The pseudo-random numbers are drawn from a Poisson distribution with rate parameter equal to 1. These are used to fluctuate the amount by which each replica histogram is filled. There are 1000 replicas, numbered from 0 to 999.

The performance of jet energy resolution (JER) for jets with |y| < 2.1 evaluated as a function of pT_truth in different centrality bins. Simulated hard scatter events were overlaid onto events from a dedicated sample of minimum-bias Xe+Xe data. The fit parameters are listed in a sperate table (Extras 1)

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for per-pair normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for absolutely normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for rho distributions for leading jets in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

Parameter a,b, and c from JER fits in Figure 1b.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.