Reference charged particle multiplicity distributions using only pions and kaons ...

Reference charged particle multiplicity distributions using only pions and kaons ...

Reference charged particle multiplicity distributions using only pions and kaons ...

Reference charged particle multiplicity distributions using only pions and kaons ...

Reference charged particle multiplicity distributions using only pions and kaons ...

Reference charged particle multiplicity distributions using only pions and kaons ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$\kappa\sigma^2$ as a function of collision energy for Au+Au collisions for 0-5% centrality.

Efficiency uncorrected $C_n$ of net-proton proton and anti-proton multiplicity distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ = 7.7 - 200 GeV as function of $\left\langle N_\text{part} \right\rangle$.

Efficiencies of proton and anti-proton as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ in Au+Au collisions for various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ and collision centralities.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Unfolded net-proton multiplicity distributions for $\sqrt{s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Unfolded net-proton multiplicity distributions for $\sqrt{s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Unfolded net-proton multiplicity distributions for $\sqrt{s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Unfolded net-proton multiplicity distributions for $\sqrt{s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Unfolded net-proton multiplicity distributions for $\sqrt{s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Unfolded net-proton multiplicity distributions for $\sqrt{s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Unfolded net-proton multiplicity distributions for $\sqrt{s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Cumulant ratios as a function of $N_{part}$ for net-proton distributions in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Cumulant ratios as a function of $N_{part}$ for net-proton distributions in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Collision centrality dependence of proton, anti-proton and net-proton cumulants

Cumulants and their ratios as a function of $<N_{part}>$, for the net-proton distribution

Centrality dependence of normalized correlation functions $\kappa_n/$kappa_1$ for proton and anti-proton multiplicity distribution

Rapidity acceptance dependence of cumulants of proton, anti-proton and net-proton multiplicity distributions in 0-5% central Au+Au collision ...

Rapidity acceptance dependence of normalized correlation functions up to fourth order.

Rapidity-acceptance dependence of cumulant ratios of proton, anti-proton and net-proton multiplicity distributions in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions...

pT-acceptance dependence of cumulants of proton, anti-proton and net-proton multiplicity distributions for 0-5% central Au+Au collisions ...

pT-acceptance dependence of the normalized correlation functions up to fourth order ($\kappa_n/\kappa_1$, $n$ = 2, 3, 4) for proton and anti-proton multiplicity distributions in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions ...

pT-acceptance dependence of cumulant ratios of proton, anti-proton and net-proton multiplicity distributions for 0-5% central Au+Au collisions ...

Cumulant ratios from HRG model as a function of collision energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$

UrQMD results on pT acceptance dependence for cumulant ratios for proton and baryon

Polynomial fit of cumulant ratios as a function of collision energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$

Polynomial fit of cumulant ratios as a function of collision energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$

Polynomial fit of cumulant ratios as a function of collision energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.

Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.

Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.

Four-body selection. (a) distributions of $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Small\,\Delta m}$ and (b) distribution of $R_{2\ell 4j}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Large\,\Delta m}$ for events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panel indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.

Four-body selection. (a) distributions of $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Small\,\Delta m}$ and (b) distribution of $R_{2\ell 4j}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Large\,\Delta m}$ for events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panel indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the Observed limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. 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 shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. 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 shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. 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 shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. 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 shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Two-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}, DF}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}, SF}$ and $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t} Z}$. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Three-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{VR(1)}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$ and $\mathrm{VR(2)}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Four-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$,$\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $VR^{4-body}_{VV}$ and $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{VV,lll}$. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Two-body selection. Background fit results for the different-flavour leptons binned SRs. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Two-body selection. Background fit results for the same-flavour leptons binned SRs. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Three-body selection. Observed event yields and background fit results for the three-body selection SRs. The ''Others'' category contains contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Four-body selection. Observed event yields and background fit results for SR$^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{\mathrm{Small}\,\Delta m}$ and SR$^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{\mathrm{Large}\,\Delta m}$. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Exclusion limits contours (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with 100% branching ratio in $\tilde{t}_1--\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The exclusion limits contours for the two-body, three-body and four-body selections are respectively shown in blue, green and red.

Exclusion limits contours (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with 100% branching ratio in $\tilde{t}_1--\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The exclusion limits contours for the two-body, three-body and four-body selections are respectively shown in blue, green and red.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm 1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty.The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty.The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. 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 shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. 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 shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. 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 shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. 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 shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Four-body selection Efficiency (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Four-body selection Efficiency (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta\ m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Four-body selection acceptance (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Four-body selection acceptance (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Three-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal strenght for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Four-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal strenght for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Three-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Four-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection. Background fit results for the $inclusive$ SRs. The Others category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=600~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=400~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the scalar signal model $t\bar{t} + \phi $ with $m(\phi)=150~ GeV$ and $m(\chi)=1~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the pseudoscalar signal model $t\bar{t} + a $ with $m(a)=150~ GeV$ and $m(\chi)=1~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=385~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=400~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=430~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=460~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=400~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=380~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=460~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=415~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=400~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=320~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Observed and expected limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^+}$ in the $M_h^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario. Limits are shown for $\tan\beta$ values in the range of 0.5-60 due to the availability of the model prediction. The bands surrounding the expected limits show the 68% and 95% confidence intervals. Uncertainties in the predicted $H^+$ cross-sections or branching ratios are not considered.

Observed and expected limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^+}$ in the $M_h^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario. Limits are shown for $\tan\beta$ values in the range of 0.5-60 due to the availability of the model prediction. The bands surrounding the expected limits show the 68% and 95% confidence intervals. Uncertainties in the predicted $H^+$ cross-sections or branching ratios are not considered.

Observed and expected limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^+}$ in the $M_h^{125}$(alignment) scenario. Limits are shown for $\tan\beta$ values in the range of 0.5-60 due to the availability of the model prediction. The bands surrounding the expected limits show the 68% and 95% confidence intervals. Uncertainties in the predicted $H^+$ cross-sections or branching ratios are not considered.

Observed and expected limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^+}$ in the $M_{h_1}^{125}$(CPV) scenario. Limits are shown for $\tan\beta$ values in the range of 0.5-60 due to the availability of the model prediction. The bands surrounding the expected limits show the 68% and 95% confidence intervals. Uncertainties in the predicted $H^+$ cross-sections or branching ratios are not considered.

Event yields of the SM background processes and the 800 GeV $H^{+}$ sample in the four analysis regions before the fit to the data. Uncertainties include both statistical and systematic uncertainties. The yields of the $H^{+}$ signal sample correspond to a cross-section times branching fraction of 10 pb.

Event acceptance for the different $H^+$ mass signal samples.

The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the top control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.

The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.

The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the $Z\rightarrow ee$ control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.

The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the signal region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

A comparison of the inferred limits with the constraints from direct-detection experiments on the spin-dependent WIMP-neutron and WIMP-proton scattering cross section as a function of the WIMP mass, in the context of the simplified model with axial-vector couplings. Limits are shown at 90% CL.

Observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ up expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ down expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ up expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ down expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ up expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ down expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ up expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ down expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Observed exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Observed exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

Expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

Observed and expected exclusions at $95\%$ CL on the Horndeski dark-energy model for $m_{\phi}=0.1$ GeV and $c_{i\neq 2}=0$, $c_{2}=1$, expressed in terms of the visible cross section as a function of the suppression scale $M_{2}$.

$95\%$ CL observed and expected lower limits on the fundamental Planck scale in $4+n$ dimensions, $M_D$, as a function of the number of extra dimensions $n$, considering nominal LO signal cross sections.

Observed and expected 95$\%$ CL upper limits on the coupling $c_{\stackrel{\sim}{\smash{G}}}$ as a function of the effective scale $f_a$ for ALP mass of 1 MeV. The bands indicate the $\pm 1\sigma$ theory uncertainties in the observed limit and the $\pm 1\sigma$and $\pm 2\sigma$ ranges of the expected limit in the absence of a signal. The 95$\%$ CL limits are computed with no suppression of the events with $\hat{s} > f_a^2$.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

A comparison of the inferred limits with the constraints from direct-detection experiments on the spin-independent WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section as a function of the WIMP mass, in the context of the simplified model with vector couplings. Limits are shown at 90% CL.

Inferred 95% CL limits on the WIMP annihilation rate as a function of WIMP mass, for the pseudoscalar mediator model. The annihilation rate is defined as the product of cross section $\sigma$ and relative velocity $v_{rel}$, averaged over the DM velocity distribution ($\langle\sigma v_{rel}\rangle$). Both the $qq$ and $gg$ annihilation channels are considered in the calculation of the annihilation rate

95% CL upper limits on the cross-section $\sigma$ in the $m_{Z_A}-m_{\chi}$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

95% CL upper limits on the cross-section $\sigma$ in the $m_{Z_P}-m_{\chi}$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

Contribution to the total SR background uncertainty in exclusive bins of the SR, as obtained from the CR-only fit. In the table, the contribution of each source of systematic is shown as the sum in quadrature of the individual contributions represented by the corresponding nuisance parameters.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM0.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM1.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM2.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM3.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM4.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM5.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM6.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM7.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM8.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM9.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM10.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM11.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM12.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM0.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM1.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM2.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM3.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM4.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM5.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM6.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM7.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM8.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM9.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM10.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM11.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM12.

Cutflow of several signal benchmarks. A cut on the truth $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ at 150 GeV is applied.

Cutflow of several signal benchmarks. A cut on the truth $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ at 350 GeV is applied.

Expected and observed limits computed using asymptotic formulas as a function of the signal mass m_{G*} and k/Mpl for the spin-2 resonance search.

The expected and observed upper limits at 95\% CL on the fiducial cross-section times branching ratio to two photons of a spin-0 resonance as a function of its mass m_X. The decay width of the resonance is equal to 2% of m_X. For masses greater than 1000 GeV, pseudo-experiments are used to verify the expected and observed limits, and used in place of the asymptotic limit when differences are observed.

The expected and observed upper limits at 95\% CL on the fiducial cross-section times branching ratio to two photons of a spin-0 resonance as a function of its mass m_X. The decay width of the resonance is equal to 6% of m_X. For masses greater than 1000 GeV, pseudo-experiments are used to verify the expected and observed limits, and used in place of the asymptotic limit when differences are observed.

The expected and observed upper limits at 95\% CL on the fiducial cross-section times branching ratio to two photons of a spin-0 resonance as a function of its mass m_X. The decay width of the resonance is equal to 10% of m_X. For masses greater than 1000 GeV, pseudo-experiments are used to verify the expected and observed limits, and used in place of the asymptotic limit when differences are observed.

The expected and observed upper limits at 95\% CL on the production cross-section times branching ratio to two photons of the lightest KK graviton as a function of its mass for k/Mpl=0.01. For masses greater than 1000 GeV, pseudo-experiments are used to verify the expected and observed limits, and used in place of the asymptotic limit when differences are observed.

The expected and observed upper limits at 95\% CL on the production cross-section times branching ratio to two photons of the lightest KK graviton as a function of its mass for k/Mpl=0.05. For masses greater than 1000 GeV, pseudo-experiments are used to verify the expected and observed limits, and used in place of the asymptotic limit when differences are observed.

Diphoton invariant mass in the signal region using a binning based on the invariant mass resolution.

Diphoton invariant mass in the signal region binned in 1 GeV bins..

Effect of event selections on a NWA spin-0 and a spin-2 ($k/Mpl=0.01$) MC samples generated for m_X = 1 TeV and on the data. For the MC samples, the event yield is shown after applying event weights; for the data, the absolute yields are shown. The initial yields for data include a trigger preselection that is the OR of a list of single photon and diphoton triggers. The "2 $loose$ photons" step includes the kinematic acceptance cuts. The cross-section times branching ratio for the spin-0 sample is normalized to the MadGraph NLO prediction of 112~fb and the cross-section times branching ratio for the graviton corresponds to the Pythia8 prediction of 12~fb.

Parameterization for the CX and AX factors as function of mX for a scalar particle, as obtained from the narrow-width MC signal samples.

Parameterization for the $C_{X}\cdot A_{X}$ factor as function of $m_{G^*}$ for the RS graviton, as obtained from k/MPl = 0.05 MC signal samples.

Parameterization of the Double Sided Crystal Ball function parameters describing the scalar mass resolution model as a function of m_{X} [GeV].

Parameterization of the Double Sided Crystal Ball function parameters describing the graviton mass resolution model as a function of m_{X} [GeV].

Inclusive differential cross section for two electrons and two muons (Max = 1710~GeV).

Mass of the first dilepton pair in the $Z$ mass region (Max = 88.1~GeV).

Mass of the first dilepton pair in the $H$ mass region (Max = 107~GeV).

Mass of the first dilepton pair in the offshell region (Max = 146~GeV).

Mass of the first dilepton pair in the $ZZ$ mass region (Max = 232~GeV).

Mass of the second dilepton pair in the $Z$ mass region (Max = 44.2~GeV).

Mass of the second dilepton pair in the $H$ mass region (Max = 59.6~GeV).

Mass of the second dilepton pair in the offhell region (Max = 88.3~GeV).

Mass of the second dilepton pair in the $ZZ$ mass region (Max = 1000~GeV).

$p_T$ of the first dilepton pair in the $Z$ mass region (Max = 291~GeV).

$p_T$ of the first dilepton pair in the $H$ mass region (Max = 245~GeV).

$p_T$ of the first dilepton pair in the offshell region (Max = 216~GeV).

$p_T$ of the first dilepton pair in the $ZZ$ mass region (Max = 555~GeV).

$p_T$ of the second dilepton pair in the $Z$ mass region (Max = 117~GeV).

$p_T$ of the second dilepton pair in the $H$ mass region (Max = 124~GeV).

$p_T$ of the second dilepton pair in the offhell region (Max = 192~GeV).

$p_T$ of the second dilepton pair in the $ZZ$ mass region (Max = 555~GeV).

$\cos\theta^*$ between first dilepton pair in the $Z$ mass region.

$\cos\theta^*$ between first dilepton pair in the offshell region.

$\cos\theta^*$ between first dilepton pair in the $H$ mass region.

$\cos\theta^*$ between first dilepton pair in the $ZZ$ mass region.

$\cos\theta^*$ between second dilepton pair in the $Z$ mass region.

$\cos\theta^*$ between second dilepton pair in the $H$ mass region.

$\cos\theta^*$ between second dilepton pair in the offshell mass region.

$\cos\theta^*$ between second dilepton pair in the $ZZ$ mass region.

$\Delta y$ between the dilepton pairs in the $Z$ mass region.

$\Delta y$ between the dilepton pairs in the $H$ mass region.

$\Delta y$ between the dilepton pairs in the offshell region.

$\Delta y$ between the dilepton pairs in the $ZZ$ mass region.

$\Delta \phi$ between the dilepton pairs in the $Z$ mass region.

$\Delta \phi$ between the dilepton pairs in the $H$ mass region.

$\Delta \phi$ between the dilepton pairs in the offshell region.

$\Delta \phi$ between the dilepton pairs in the $ZZ$ mass region.

$\Delta \phi$ between the leading lepton pairs in the $Z$ mass region.

$\Delta \phi$ between the leading lepton pairs in the $H$ mass region.

$\Delta \phi$ between the leding lepton pairs in the offshell region.

$\Delta \phi$ between the leading lepton pairs in the $ZZ$ mass region.

Four lepton mass in first $p_T^{4l}$ slice (Max = 726~GeV)

Four lepton mass in second $p_T^{4l}$ slice (Max = 1079~GeV)

Four lepton mass in third $p_T^{4l}$ slice (Max = 1153~GeV)

Four lepton mass in fourth $p_T^{4l}$ slice (Max = 1320~GeV)

Four lepton mass in fifth $p_T^{4l}$ slice (Max = 1413~GeV)

Four lepton mass in first $y^{4l}$ slice (Max = 1710~GeV)

Four lepton mass in second $y^{4l}$ slice (Max = 1116~GeV)

Four lepton mass in third $y^{4l}$ slice (Max = 1413~GeV)

Four lepton mass in fourth $y^{4l}$ slice (Max = 1044~GeV)

Four lepton mass in fifth $y^{4l}$ slice (Max = 918~GeV)

Covariance matrix for M4l

Covariance matrix for M4lvChannel

Covariance matrix for m12_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for m34_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for pt12_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for pt34_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for CTS12_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for CTS34_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for dYpairs_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for dPhiPairs_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for dPhiLeadLep_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for M4lvPt4lbin

Covariance matrix for M4lvRapiditybin

EFT results (linear)

EFT results (full)

Parton inclusive-jet $p_T$ and $A_{LL}$ values with associated uncertainties for jet-$\eta$ region $0.5<|\eta|<1$.

Parton inclusive-jet $p_T$ and $A_{LL}$ values with associated uncertainties for jet-$\eta$ region $|\eta|<0.5$.

Parton dijet invariant mass $M_{inv}$ and $A_{LL}$ values with associated uncertainties for the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) = \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology.

Parton dijet invariant mass $M_{inv}$ and $A_{LL}$ values with associated uncertainties for the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) \neq \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology.

Parton inclusive-jet $p_T$, $x_T$, and $A_{LL}$ values with associated uncertainties for jet-$\eta$ region $|\eta|<1$.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties for inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $0.5<|\eta|<1$ region. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties for inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $|\eta|<0.5$ region. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties for inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $|\eta|<1$ region. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties coupling inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $|\eta|<0.5$ region and jets in the $0.5<|\eta|<1$ region. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties coupling inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $0.5<|\eta|<1$ region with dijet measurements with the the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) = \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties coupling inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $0.5<|\eta|<1$ region with dijet measurements with the the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) \neq \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties coupling inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $|\eta|<0.5$ region with dijet measurements with the the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) = \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties coupling inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $|\eta|<0.5$ region with dijet measurements with the the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) \neq \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties coupling inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $|\eta|<1$ region with dijet measurements with the the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) = \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties coupling inclusive jet measurements with jets in the $|\eta|<1$ region with dijet measurements with the the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) \neq \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties for dijet measurements with the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) = \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties for dijet measurements with the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) \neq \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

The correlation matrix for the point-to-point uncertainties coupling dijet measurements with the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) \neq \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology and the $\textrm{sign}(\eta_1) = \textrm{sign}(\eta_2)$ topology. The $A_{LL}$ uncertainty contribution of $0.0007$ from uncertainty in the relative luminosity measurement and $6.1\%$ from the beam polarization uncertainty, which are common to all the data points, are separated from the listed values.

Efficiency in the Single-bin SR as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta$ M(N2,N1) $= 130$ GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.

Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} < 0.5$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.

Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} < 0.5$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.

Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $0.5 < \min_{\Theta} < 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.

Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $0.5 < \min_{\Theta} < 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.

Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} > 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.

Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} > 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.

Observed upper limits on the signal cross section as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV.

Expected upper limits on the signal cross section as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV.

Cutflows for the bechmarl signal point M(Sbottom) = 800 GeV, M(N2) = 180 GeV. Weighted event yields are reported starting with the "Preselection" line, normalized to an integrated luminosity of $139$ fb$^{−1}$.

Comparison of the expected and observed event yields in the signal regions. The top-quark and Z(mumu) background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. The other contribution includes all the backgrounds not explicitly listed in the legend (V+jets except Z(mumu)+jets, di-/triboson, multijet). The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background. The contributions from three signal models to the signal regions are also displayed, where the masses M(Sbottom) and M(N2) are given in GeV in the legend. The lower panel shows the significance of the deviation of the observed yield from the expected background yield.

Dominant systematic uncertainties in the background prediction for the signal regions after the fit to the control regions. “Other” includes the uncertainties arising from muons, jet-vertex tagging, modeling of pile-up, the $E_{T}^{miss}$ computation, multijet background, and luminosity. The individual uncertainties can be correlated and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total uncertainty.

The $p_{\text{T}}$ dependence of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The $p_{\text{T}}$ dependence of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The $p_{\text{T}}$ dependence of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The $p_{\text{T}}$ dependence of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The $p_{\text{T}}$ dependence of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The $p_{\text{T}}$ dependence of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The $p_{\text{T}}$ dependence of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The $p_{\text{T}}$ dependence of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The $p_{\text{T}}$ dependence of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The $p_{\text{T}}$ dependence of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The $p_{\text{T}}$ dependence of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The $p_{\text{T}}$ dependence of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The $p_{\text{T}}$ dependence of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV for different centrality classes. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Flow coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy $KE_{\text{T}}/n_{q}$ for various particles at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

The flow coefficients $v_{n}$ scaled by $\varepsilon_{n}\left\lbrace 2\right\rbrace$ as a function of $p_{\text{T}}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1) in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

$v_{n}$ coefficients, scaled by the number of constituent quarks $(n_{q})$ to the power $n/2$ and participant eccentricity $\varepsilon_{n}$, of identified particles versus $(m_{T}-m_{0})/n_{q}$ for three centrality bins in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. The error bars represent statistical uncertainties. The bands represent point-by-point systematic uncertainties.

Ratios of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1.0) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. Error bars represent statistical uncertainties.

Ratios of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1.0) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. Error bars represent statistical uncertainties.

Ratios of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1.0) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. Error bars represent statistical uncertainties.

Ratios of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1.0) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. Error bars represent statistical uncertainties.

Ratios of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1.0) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. Error bars represent statistical uncertainties.

Ratios of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1.0) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. Error bars represent statistical uncertainties.

Ratios of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1.0) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. Error bars represent statistical uncertainties.

Ratios of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1.0) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. Error bars represent statistical uncertainties.

Ratios of $v_{n}$ coefficients at mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 1.0) in minimum bias U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV. Error bars represent statistical uncertainties.