Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 1.5, 1.0, and 0.75 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 0.5, 0.35, and 0.25 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(a) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(a) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

N-1 distribution for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$of observed data and expected background in SRGGWZ-H.

N-1 distribution for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$of observed data and expected background in SRGGSlep-M.

N-1 distribution for $\sum{p_{\mathrm{T}}^\mathrm{jet}}$of observed data and expected background in SRUDD-ge2b.

N-1 distribution for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$of observed data and expected background in SRLQD.

N-1 distribution for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$of observed data and expected background in SRSSWZ-H.

N-1 distribution for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$of observed data and expected background in SRSSSlep-H(loose).

Signal acceptance for SRGGWZ-H signal region from Fig 10(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGWZ-H signal region from Fig 15(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRGGWZ-M signal region from Fig 10(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGWZ-M signal region from Fig 15(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRGGWZ-L signal region from Fig 10(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGWZ-L signal region from Fig 15(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRGGSlep-L signal region from Fig 12(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGSlep-L signal region from Fig 17(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRGGSlep-M signal region from Fig 12(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGSlep-M signal region from Fig 17(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRGGSlep-H signal region from Fig 12(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGSlep-H signal region from Fig 17(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRUDD-1b signal region from Fig 14(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal efficiency for SRUDD-1b signal region from Fig 19(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal acceptance for SRUDD-2b signal region from Fig 14(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal efficiency for SRUDD-2b signal region from Fig 19(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal acceptance for SRUDD-ge2b signal region from Fig 14(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal efficiency for SRUDD-ge2b signal region from Fig 19(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal acceptance for SRUDD-ge3b signal region from Fig 14(e) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal efficiency for SRUDD-ge3b signal region from Fig 19(e) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal acceptance for SRLQD signal region from Fig 14(a) in a SUSY scenario where direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Signal efficiency for SRLQD signal region from Fig 19(a) in a SUSY scenario where direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Signal acceptance for SRSSWZ-L signal region from Fig 11(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSWZ-L signal region from Fig 16(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSWZ-ML signal region from Fig 11(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSWZ-ML signal region from Fig 16(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSWZ-MH signal region from Fig 11(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSWZ-MH signal region from Fig 16(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSWZ-H signal region from Fig 11(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSWZ-H signal region from Fig 16(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-H signal region from Fig 13(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-H signal region from Fig 18(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-MH signal region from Fig 13(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-MH signal region from Fig 18(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-L signal region from Fig 13(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-L signal region from Fig 18(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-ML signal region from Fig 13(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-ML signal region from Fig 18(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-H(loose) signal region from Fig 13(e) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-H(loose) signal region from Fig 18(e) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGWZ-H in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 1000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGWZ-M in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 1000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGWZ-L in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 1000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGSlep-L in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 2000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 500 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGSlep-M in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 2000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 500 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGSlep-H in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 2000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 500 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRUDD-1b in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRUDD-2b in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRUDD-ge2b in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRUDD-ge3b in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRLQD in a susy scenario where direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 2200 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 1870 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSWZ-L in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSWZ-ML in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSWZ-MH in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSWZ-H in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-H in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-MH in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-L in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-ML in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-H(loose) in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(a) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Observed excluded cross-section at 95% CL for the WZ-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production from Fig 8(aux).

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL for the WZ-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for the Wh-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production from from Fig 13(a) and from Fig 7 and Fig 10(aux).

Observed excluded cross-section at 95% CL for the Wh-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production from Fig 7(aux) and Fig 10(aux).

positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for the Wh-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production from from Fig 13(a) and from Fig 7 and Fig 10(aux).

negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for the Wh-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production from from Fig 13(a) and from Fig 7 and Fig 10(aux).

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL for the Wh-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL for the Wh-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL for the Wh-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region $SR^{bRPV}_{2l-SS}$. in a susy scenario where $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are produced in pairs and decay to all possible allowed bRPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV, tan$\beta$=5. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region $SR^{bRPV}_{3l}$. in a susy scenario where $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are produced in pairs and decay to all possible allowed bRPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV, tan$\beta$=5. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region $SR^{WZ}_{high-m_{T2}}$. The wino-like doublet pair ($\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$) were produced and then decays into $bino-like \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}$ which is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) accompanied by mass on-shell or mass off-shell W and Z bosons. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 150 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1})$ = 50 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region $SR^{WZ}_{low-m_{T2}}$. The wino-like doublet pair ($\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$) were produced and then decays into $bino-like \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}$ which is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) accompanied by mass on-shell or mass off-shell W and Z bosons. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 150 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1})$ = 50 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the low mass $SR^{RPV}_{2l1b}$, where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the medium mass $SR^{RPV}_{2l1b}$, where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the low mass $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}$, where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the medium mass $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}$, where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the high mass $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}$, where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the low mass $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}$, where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the medium mass $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}$, where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the high mass $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}$, where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the $SR^{Wh}_{low-m_{T2} }$. The wino-like doublet pair ($\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$) were produced and then decays into $bino-like \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}$ which is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) accompanied by mass on-shell or mass off-shell W and Higgs bosons. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 300 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1})$ = 100 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the $SR^{Wh}_{high-m_{T2} }$. The wino-like doublet pair ($\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$) were produced and then decays into $bino-like \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}$ which is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) accompanied by mass on-shell or mass off-shell W and Higgs bosons. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 300 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1})$ = 100 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal Hepdataeptance for $SR^{bRPV}_{2l-SS}$ signal region from Fig 13(a)(aux) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are produced in pairs and decay to all possible allowed bRPV decays.

Signal Hepdataeptance for $SR^{bRPV}_{3l}$ signal region from Fig 13(b)(aux) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are produced in pairs and decay to all possible allowed bRPV decays.

Signal acceptance for $SR^{WZ}_{high-m_{T2}}$ in a SUSY scenario where the wino-like doublet pair ($\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$) were produced and then decays into $bino-like \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}$ which is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) accompanied by mass on-shell or mass off-shell W and Z bosons.

Signal acceptance for $SR^{WZ}_{low-m_{T2}}$ in a SUSY scenario where the wino-like doublet pair ($\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$) were produced and then decays into $bino-like \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}$ which is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) accompanied by mass on-shell or mass off-shell W and Z bosons.

Signal acceptance for $SR^{RPV}_{2l1b}-L$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.

Signal acceptance for $SR^{RPV}_{2l1b}-M$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.

Signal acceptance for $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}-L$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.

Signal acceptance for $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}-M$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.

Signal acceptance for $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}-H$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.

Signal acceptance for $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}-L$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.

Signal acceptance for $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}-M$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.

Signal acceptance for $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}-H$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.

Signal efficiency for $SR^{bRPV}_{2l-SS}$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are produced in pairs and decay to all possible allowed bRPV decays.

Signal efficiency for $SR^{bRPV}_{3l}$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are produced in pairs and decay to all possible allowed bRPV decays.

Signal efficiency for $SR^{WZ}_{high-m_{T2}}$ in a SUSY scenario where the wino-like doublet pair ($\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$) were produced and then decays into $bino-like \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}$ which is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) accompanied by mass on-shell or mass off-shell W and Z bosons.

Signal efficiency for $SR^{WZ}_{low-m_{T2}}$ in a SUSY scenario where the wino-like doublet pair ($\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$) were produced and then decays into $bino-like \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}$ which is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) accompanied by mass on-shell or mass off-shell W and Z bosons.

Signal efficiency for $SR^{RPV}_{2l1b}-L$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.

Signal efficiency for $SR^{RPV}_{2l1b}-M$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.

Signal efficiency for $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}-L$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.

Signal efficiency for $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}-M$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.

Signal efficiency for $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}-H$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.

Signal efficiency for $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}-L$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.

Signal efficiency for $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}-M$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.

Signal efficiency for $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}-H$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.

Signal acceptance for $SR^{Wh}_{high-m_{T2} }$ signal region from Fig 11(a)(aux) in a SUSY scenario where direct production of a lightest $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ , decay with 100% branching ratio to a final state with a same sign light lepton (e or $\mu$) pair and two lightest neutralino1, via the on-shell emission of SM W and Higgs bosons,

Signal acceptance for $SR^{Wh}_{low-m_{T2} }$ signal region from Fig 11(b)(aux) in a SUSY scenario where direct production of a lightest $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ , decay with 100% branching ratio to a final state with a same sign light lepton (e or $\mu$) pair and two lightest neutralino1, via the on-shell emission of SM W and Higgs bosons,

Signal efficiency for $SR^{Wh}_{high-m_{T2} }$ signal region from Fig 15(a)(aux) in a SUSY scenario where direct production of a lightest $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ , decay with 100% branching ratio to a final state with a same sign light lepton (e or $\mu$) pair and two lightest neutralino1, via the on-shell emission of SM W and Higgs bosons,

Signal efficiency for $SR^{Wh}_{low-m_{T2} }$ signal region from Fig 15(b)(aux) in a SUSY scenario where direct production of a lightest $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ , decay with 100% branching ratio to a final state with a same sign light lepton (e or $\mu$) pair and two lightest neutralino1, via the on-shell emission of SM W and Higgs bosons,

Observed 95% X-section upper limits as a function of higgsino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ mass in the bilinear RPV model from Fig 14.

Observed 95% X-section upper limits as a function of higgsino $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ mass in the UDD RPV model from Fig 18.

Observed 95% X-section upper limits as a function of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ mass in the WZ-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production from Fig 9(aux).

N-1 distributions for $m_{T2}$ of observed data and expected background towards $SR^{WZ}_{high-m_{T2}}$ from publication's Figure 11(a) . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distributions for $m_{T2}$ of observed data and expected background towards $SR^{WZ}_{low-m_{T2}}$ from publication's Figure 11(b) . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distributions for $m_{T2}$ of observed data and expected background towards $SR^{bRPV}_{2l-SS}$ from publication's Figure 11(c) . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distributions for $m_{T2}$ of observed data and expected background towards $SR^{bRPV}_{3l}$ from publication's Figure 11(d) . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distributions for $\sum p^{b-jet}_{T}/\sum p^{jet}_{T}$ of observed data and expected background towards $SR^{RPV}_{2l1b}-L$ from publication's Figure 16(a) . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distributions for $\sum p^{b-jet}_{T}/\sum p^{jet}_{T}$ of observed data and expected background towards $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}-M$ from publication's Figure 16(b) . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distributions for $\sum p^{b-jet}_{T}/\sum p^{jet}_{T}$ of observed data and expected background towards $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}-H$ from publication's Figure 16(c) . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distribution for $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{Wh}_{high-m_{T2} }$ in ee channel

N-1 distribution for $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{Wh}_{high-m_{T2} }$ in e$\mu$ channel

N-1 distribution for $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{Wh}_{high-m_{T2} }$ in $\mu\mu$ channel

N-1 distribution for $\mathcal{S}(E_{T}^{miss})$ in $SR^{Wh}_{low-m_{T2} }$ in ee channel

N-1 distribution for $\mathcal{S}(E_{T}^{miss})$ in $SR^{Wh}_{low-m_{T2} }$ in e$\mu$ channel

N-1 distribution for $\mathcal{S}(E_{T}^{miss})$ in $SR^{Wh}_{low-m_{T2} }$ in $\mu\mu$ channel

Average timing distributions for SR data and the estimated background as determined by the background-only fit, in each of the five exclusive $\rho$ categories. For comparison, the expected timing shapes for a few different signal models are superimposed, with each model labeled by the values of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass and lifetime, as well as decay mode. To provide some indication of the variations in signal yield and shape, three signal models are shown for each of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decay modes, namely $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $H \tilde G$ and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $Z \tilde G$. The models shown include a rather low $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value of 135 GeV for lifetimes of either 2 ns or 10 ns, and a higher $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value which is near the 95% CL exclusion limit for each decay mode for a lifetime of 2 ns. Each signal model is shown with the signal normalization corresponding to a BR value of unity for the decay mode in question.

Average timing distributions for SR data and the estimated background as determined by the background-only fit, in each of the five exclusive $\rho$ categories. For comparison, the expected timing shapes for a few different signal models are superimposed, with each model labeled by the values of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass and lifetime, as well as decay mode. To provide some indication of the variations in signal yield and shape, three signal models are shown for each of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decay modes, namely $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $H \tilde G$ and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $Z \tilde G$. The models shown include a rather low $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value of 135 GeV for lifetimes of either 2 ns or 10 ns, and a higher $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value which is near the 95% CL exclusion limit for each decay mode for a lifetime of 2 ns. Each signal model is shown with the signal normalization corresponding to a BR value of unity for the decay mode in question.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 10 ns, in the H decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.

Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 10 ns, in the Z decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.

Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 2 ns, in the H decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.

Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 2 ns, in the Z decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.

Acceptance across the H decay mode signal grid, calculated using truth information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns).

Acceptance across the Z decay mode signal grid, calculated using truth information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns).

Efficiency across the H decay mode signal grid, calculated using reco information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns). Here, the numerator is the signal yield passing the reco selection and the denominator is the signal yield passing the truth selection.

Efficiency across the Z decay mode signal grid, calculated using reco information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns). Here, the numerator is the signal yield passing the reco selection and the denominator is the signal yield passing the truth selection.

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the High-pT jet SR for observed data events

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the High-pT jet SR for expected signal events in the strong gluino pair pair production model with m(gluino)=1.8 TeV, m(chi0)=0.2 TeV, tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the Trackless jet SR for observed data events

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the Trackless jet SR for expected signal events in the electroweak pair production model

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the electroweak pair production model.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the strong gluino pair production models and m($ ilde{\chi}^0_1$)=1.25 TeV

Acceptance cutflow for the High-pT SR for representative points in the strong gluino pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks final state. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the High-pT SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks final state. See additional resources for more information.

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R < 1150 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R > 3870 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R < 1150 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R > 3870 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R < 22 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [22, 25] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [25, 29] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [29, 38] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [38, 46] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [46, 73] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [73, 84] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [84, 111] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [111, 120] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [120, 145] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [145, 180] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [180, 300] mm

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the High-pT SR for representative points in the strong gluino pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the High-pT SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks. See additional resources for more information.

Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker. Both are evaluated using an independent sample of testing events.

TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker. Both are evaluated using an independent sample of testing events.

The efficiency of the TD jet tagger working point used in the analysis is shown as a function of the lab frame transverse decay length for simulated signals with $\chi$ mass of 400 GeV. The uncertainties shown account for lifetime dependence and statistical uncertainty.

The TD jet tagger score distributions for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. The last bin contains jets with tagger scores greater than 0.996, the threshold used to tag signal jets. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR (black round markers) is shown along with the systematic uncertainty (gray band), quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The measurements in the alternative MRs are displayed as well ($Z$+jets MR as green round markers, $t\bar{t}$ MR as red squared markers, QCD MR as blue triangular markers) along with their respective statistical uncertainty. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.

The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR (black round markers) is shown along with the systematic uncertainty (gray band), quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The measurements in the alternative MRs are displayed as well ($Z$+jets MR as green round markers, $t\bar{t}$ MR as red squared markers, QCD MR as blue triangular markers) along with their respective statistical uncertainty. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.

Distribution of the number of TD tagged jets for the $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeVsimulated signal samples with $c\tau_{\chi} = 0.5$ m (solid red line) and $c\tau_{\chi} = 3.0$ m (dotted green line), estimated background (blue square markers), and data (black round markers). The signal distributions are normalized to the expected cross section limit. The blue shaded region indicates the systematic uncertainty in the background prediction. No background prediction is shown for the bin with zero TD tagged jets as it is the main control region used to predict the background for the other two bins. There are zero observed events in the bin with two or more TD tagged jets.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The distribution of the jet charged hadron energy fraction, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The distribution of the jet neutral hadron energy fraction, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The distribution of the number of track constituents in the jet, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The $\eta$ distribution of TD-tagged jets in a background-enriched control region that comprises events with exactly one TD-tagged jet. Observed data (black round markers) and the corresponding prediction based on control samples in data (empty squared markers), measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR, are compared. The prediction uncertainty (gray band) includes the systematic uncertainty quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The predictions for the shape and the normalization of the $\eta$ distribution are consistent with the data.

Jet time distribution in a sample of b-tagged jets from dilepton $t \bar{t}$ events in 2017 data-taking period (black round markers) and simulation (filled histogram). A Gaussian smearing procedure is applied to the jet time in the $t \bar{t}$ sample (green line) to correct for effects that are difficult to simulate (timing drift caused by crystals transparency loss due to detector aging, electronics jitter).

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 1$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.75$, $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 0.25$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.25$, $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 0.75$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 1$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 127 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 127 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 150 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 150 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 175 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 175 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 200 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 200 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 250 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 250 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 300 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 300 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 400 GeV.

Summary of the total uncertainty in the background prediction for each SR of the tt0L-low, tt0L-high, tt1L and tt2L analysis channels in the statistical combination. Their dominant contributions are indicated by individual lines. Individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(\phi)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Associated production of DM with both single top quarks ($tW$ and $tj$ channels) and top quark pairs is considered. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for each individual channel and their statistical combination.

Exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudoscalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(a)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Associated production of DM with both single top quarks ($tW$ and $tj$ channels) and top quark pairs is considered. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for each individual channel and their statistical combination.

$E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution in SR0X for the tt0L-low analysis. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown after the profile likelihood simultaneous fit to all tt0L-low CRs, with the hatched bands representing the total uncertainty. The category '$t\bar{t}$ (other)' represents $t\bar{t}$ events without extra jets or events with extra light-flavour jets. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines. The overflow events are included in the last bin. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the hatched area representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction and the red arrows marking data outside the vertical-axis range.

$E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution in SRWX for the tt0L-low analysis. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown after the profile likelihood simultaneous fit to all tt0L-low CRs, with the hatched bands representing the total uncertainty. The category '$t\bar{t}$ (other)' represents $t\bar{t}$ events without extra jets or events with extra light-flavour jets. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines. The overflow events are included in the last bin. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the hatched area representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction and the red arrows marking data outside the vertical-axis range.

$E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution in SRTX for the tt0L-low analysis. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown after the profile likelihood simultaneous fit to all tt0L-low CRs, with the hatched bands representing the total uncertainty. The category '$t\bar{t}$ (other)' represents $t\bar{t}$ events without extra jets or events with extra light-flavour jets. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines. The overflow events are included in the last bin. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the hatched area representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction and the red arrows marking data outside the vertical-axis range.

Exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(\phi)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Associated production of DM with both single top quarks ($tW$ and $tj$ channels) and top quark pairs is considered. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the nominal cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for the tt0L-high and tt0L-low analyses and their statistical combination.

Exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudoscalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(a)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Associated production of DM with both single top quarks ($tW$ and $tj$ channels) and top quark pairs is considered. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the nominal cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for the tt0L-high and tt0L-low analyses and their statistical combination.

Exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(\phi)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Only associated production of DM with top quark pairs is considered for this interpretation. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for each individual channel and their statistical combination.

Exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudoscalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(a)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Only associated production of DM with top quark pairs is considered for this interpretation. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for each individual channel and their statistical combination.

Exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(\phi)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Only associated production of DM with top quark pairs is considered for this interpretation. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the nominal cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for the tt0L-high and tt0L-low analyses and their statistical combination.

Exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudoscalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(a)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Only associated production of DM with top quark pairs is considered for this interpretation. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the nominal cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for the tt0L-high and tt0L-low analyses and their statistical combination.

Representative fit distribution in the different flavour leptons signal region for the tt2L analysis: each bin of such distribution, starting from the red arrow, corresponds to a single SR included in the fit. 'FNP' includes the contribution from fake/non-prompt lepton background arising from jets (mainly $\pi/K$, heavy-flavour hadron decays and photon conversion) misidentified as leptons, estimated in a purely data-driven way. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The total uncertainty in the SM expectation is represented with hatched bands and the expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines.

Signal acceptance in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$t\bar{t}$ model, defined as the number of accepted events at generator level in signal Monte Carlo simulation divided by the total number of events in the sample.

Signal acceptance in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$tW$ model, defined as the number of accepted events at generator level in signal Monte Carlo simulation divided by the total number of events in the sample.

Signal acceptance in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$tj$ model, defined as the number of accepted events at generator level in signal Monte Carlo simulation divided by the total number of events in the sample.

Signal efficiency in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$t\bar{t}$ model, defined as the number of selected reconstructed events divided by the acceptance.

Signal efficiency in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$tW$ model, defined as the number of selected reconstructed events divided by the acceptance.

Signal efficiency in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$tj$ model, defined as the number of selected reconstructed events divided by the acceptance.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 2045000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 2045000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 2045000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 400000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 400000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 400000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 120000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 120000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 120000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 100000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 100000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 100000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 169000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 169000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 169000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 140000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 140000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 140000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

Cutflow table for the slepton signal sample with $m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = (100,70)$ GeV, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in [100,\infty)$ region. The yields include the process cross section and are weighted to the 139 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity. 246000 events were generated for the sample.

Cutflow table for the slepton signal sample with $m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = (100,70)$ GeV, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in [100,\infty)$ region. The yields include the process cross section and are weighted to the 139 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity. 246000 events were generated for the sample.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models, with observed upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) overlaid, for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

The upper panel shows the observed number of events in each of the binned SRs defined in Table 3, together with the expected SM backgrounds obtained after applying the efficiency correction method to compute the number of expected FSB events. `Others' include the non-dominant background sources, e.g. $t \bar{t}$+$V$, Higgs boson and Drell--Yan events. The uncertainty band includes systematic and statistical errors from all sources. The distributions of two signal points with mass splittings $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = 30$ GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = 50$ GeV are overlaid. The lower panel shows the significance as defined in Ref. [115].

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,0.8125]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,0.8125]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,0.815]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,0.815]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,0.8175]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,0.8175]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,0.82]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,0.82]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,0.8225]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,0.8225]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,0.825]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,0.825]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,0.8275]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,0.8275]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,0.83]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,0.83]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,0.8325]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,0.8325]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,0.835]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,0.835]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,0.8375]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,0.8375]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,0.84]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,0.84]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,0.845]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,0.845]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,0.85]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,0.85]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,0.86]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,0.86]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

Cutflow table for the chargino signal sample with $m\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0=(125,25)$ GeV, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in (0.77,1]$ and SR-DF BDT-signal$\in (0.81,1]$ regions. The yields include the process cross-section and are weighted to the 139 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity. 170000 events were generated for the sample.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models, with observed upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) overlaid, for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

The upper panel shows the observed number of events in the SRs defined in Table 3, together with the expected SM backgrounds obtained after the background fit in the CRs. `Others' include the non-dominant background sources, e.g.$t \bar{t}$+$V$, Higgs boson and Drell--Yan events. The uncertainty band includes systematic and statistical errors from all sources. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison. The lower panel shows the significance as defined in Ref. [115].

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $bb\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $gg\phi$ production rate has been fixed to zero. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 38 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $gg\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only top quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 39 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $gg\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only bottom quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 40 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 31 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $bb\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $gg\phi$ production rate has been profiled. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 32 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been fixed to zero. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 33 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $bb\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $gg\phi$ production rate has been fixed to zero. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 34 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only top quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 35 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only bottom quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 36 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$), via vector boson fusion ($qq\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate is profiled, whereas the scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $qq\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 64 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 65 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 66 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 67 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 68 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 69 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 70 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 71 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 72 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 73 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 74 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 75 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 76 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 77 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 78 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 79 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 80 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 81 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 82 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 83 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 84 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 85 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 86 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on $g_U$ in the VLQ BM 1 scenario in a mass range of $1\leq m_U\leq 5\text{ TeV}$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12a of the publication.

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on $g_U$ in the VLQ BM 2 scenario in a mass range of $1\leq m_U\leq 5\text{ TeV}$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12b of the publication.

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on $g_U$ in the VLQ BM 3 scenario in a mass range of $1\leq m_U\leq 5\text{ TeV}$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 92 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11a of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 41 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 42 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11b of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 43 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11c of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 44 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 45 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11d of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 46 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 47 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $250\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11e of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 48 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $350\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 49 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 50 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $450\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 51 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11f of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 52 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $700\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 53 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 54 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 55 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11g of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11h of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 56 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 57 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 58 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 59 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 60 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 61 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 62 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 63 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11i of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11a of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 41 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 42 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11b of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 43 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11c of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 44 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 45 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11d of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 46 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 47 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $250\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11e of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 48 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $350\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 49 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 50 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $450\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 51 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11f of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 52 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $700\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 53 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 54 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 55 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11g of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11h of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 56 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 57 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 58 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 59 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 60 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 61 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 62 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 63 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11i of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 1\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 99 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 2\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 100 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 3\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 101 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 4\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 102 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 5\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 103 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 1\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 104 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 2\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 105 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 3\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 106 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 4\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 107 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 5\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 108 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 1\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 109 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 2\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 110 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 3\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 111 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 4\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 112 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 5\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 113 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Fractions of the cross-section $\sigma(gg\phi)$ as expected from SM for the loop contributions with only top quarks, only bottom quarks and from the top-bottom interference. These values are used to scale the corresponding signal components for a given mass $m_\phi$.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for high-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for high-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for high-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 25 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 25 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 25 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8a of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8a of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8a of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 26 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 26 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 26 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8b of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8b of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8b of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 27 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 27 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 27 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 28 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 28 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 28 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8e of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8e of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8e of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8f of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8f of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8f of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for low-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for low-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for low-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 21 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 21 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 21 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 22 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 22 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 22 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 23 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 23 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 23 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 24 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 24 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 24 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 20 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 20 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 20 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Signal region detector-level distribution for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lead}\, \ell}$.

Signal region detector-level distribution for the observable $m_{e\mu}$.

Signal region detector-level distribution for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{e\mu}$.

Measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$

Relative systematic uncertainties for the fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$

Measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $|\Delta \phi(e \mu)|$

Relative systematic uncertainties for the fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $|\Delta \phi(e \mu)|$

Measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $ \cos\theta^{\ast}$

Relative systematic uncertainties for the fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $ \cos\theta^{\ast}$

Measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lead}\, \ell}$

Relative systematic uncertainties for the fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lead}\, \ell}$

Measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $m_{e\mu}$

Relative systematic uncertainties for the fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $m_{e\mu}$

Measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{e\mu}$

Relative systematic uncertainties for the fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{e\mu}$

The statistical correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$

The total correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$

The statistical correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $|\Delta \phi(e \mu)|$

The total correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $|\Delta \phi(e \mu)|$

The statistical correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $ \cos\theta^{\ast}$

The total correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $ \cos\theta^{\ast}$

The statistical correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lead}\, \ell}$

The total correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lead}\, \ell}$

The statistical correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $m_{e\mu}$

The total correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $m_{e\mu}$

The statistical correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{e\mu}$

The total correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{e\mu}$