Sample correlations in $\Delta\phi$ ($|\Delta\eta|<$ 1.78) for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\phi$ and reflected in the plot.

Background subtracted sample correlations for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ on the near-side for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The dependence of the jet-like correlation is shown as a function of $\Delta\eta$ ($|\Delta\phi|<$ 0.78). The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\eta$.

Background subtracted sample correlations for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ on the near-side for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The dependence of the jet-like correlation is shown as a function of $\Delta\phi$ ($|\Delta\eta|<$ 1.78). The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\phi$.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu and 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu, 0-12% Au+Au and 40-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Observed 95% confidence-level upper limits on the cross section for Drell-Yan spin-1/2 HECO production as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 4000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 200 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 200 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 200 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 200 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 200 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM $W^\prime$ production and decay to the muon+neutrino channel as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.

Combined (electron and muon channels) upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM $W^\prime$ production and decay to a single lepton generation as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.

Observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to the electron+neutrino channel as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.

Observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to the muon+neutrino channel as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.

Combined (electron and muon channels) observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to a single lepton generation as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.

Observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the visible cross section in the electron+neutrino channel as a function of the transverse mass threshold.

Observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the visible cross section in the muon+neutrino channel as a function of the transverse mass threshold.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the electron and muon selections as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.

Expected upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to the electron+neutrino channel as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.

Expected upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to the muon+neutrino channel as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.

Combined (electron and muon channels) expected upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to a single lepton generation as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.

Dijet invariant mass distribution for the category with at least one b-tagged jet.

Dijet invariant mass distribution for the category with both jets b-tagged.

The 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times acceptance times branching ratio into two jets as a function of the mass of q* signal.

The 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times acceptance times branching ratio into two jets as a function of the mass of QBH signal.

The 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times acceptance times branching ratio into two jets as a function of the mass of W' signal.

The 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times acceptance times branching ratio into two jets as a function of the mass of W* signal.

The upper limits on the DM mediator Z' signal at 95% CL from the inclusive category. The 95% CL upper limits are set on the universal quark coupling $g_q$ as a function of the Z' mass.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times acceptance times b-tagging efficiency times branching ratio as a function of the mass of the b* signal.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times acceptance times b-tagging efficiency times branching ratio as a function of the signal mass in the DM mediator Z' with $g_q$ = 0.25 model.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times acceptance times b-tagging efficiency times branching ratio as a function of the signal mass in the SSM Z' model.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times acceptance times b-tagging efficiency times branching ratio as a function of the signal mass in the graviton with $k/\overline{M}_{PL}=0.2$ model.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times kinematic acceptance times branching ratio for resonances with a generic Gaussian shape, as a function of the Gaussian mean mass in the inclusive category. Different widths, from 0% up to 15% of the signal mass, are considered. Gaussian-shape signals with 0% widths correspond to signal widths smaller than the experimental resolution. For a Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width of 15%, the limits are truncated at high mass when the broad signal starts to overlap the upper end of the mass spectrum.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times kinematic acceptance times b-tagging efficiency times branching ratio for resonances with a generic Gaussian shape, as a function of the Gaussian mean mass in the 1 b category. Different widths, from 0% up to 15% of the signal mass, are considered. Gaussian-shape signals with 0% widths correspond to signal widths smaller than the experimental resolution. For a Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width of 15%, the limits are truncated at high mass when the broad signal starts to overlap the upper end of the mass spectrum.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times kinematic acceptance times b-tagging efficiency times branching ratio for resonances with a generic Gaussian shape, as a function of the Gaussian mean mass in the 2 b category. Different widths, from 0% up to 15% of the signal mass, are considered. Gaussian-shape signals with 0% widths correspond to signal widths smaller than the experimental resolution. For a Gaussian-shaped signal with a relative width of 15%, the limits are truncated at high mass when the broad signal starts to overlap the upper end of the mass spectrum.

The expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times acceptance times b-tagging efficiency times branching ratio as a function of the DM mediator Z' mass for the current and previous iterations of the analysis. The upper limit of the previous result was obtained with the Bayesian method and is also shown scaled to the 139 fb$^{-1}$ integrated luminosity of the current result to illustrate the effect of the analysis improvements.

Acceptance for the QBH, Q* and W' benchmark signal models in the inclusive category, as a function of the simulated mass.

Acceptance for the DM Z' benchmark signal model for various $g_q$ coupling parameters in the inclusive category, as a function of the simulated mass.

Acceptance for the W* benchmark signal model in the inclusive category, as a function of the simulated mass.

Acceptance times b-tagging efficiency for the b* benchmark signal model in the 1b category, as a function of the simulated mass.

Acceptance times b-tagging efficiency for the DM Z' with $g_q$=0.25, SSM Z' and graviton with $k/\overline{M}_{PL}=0.2$ benchmark signal models in the 2b category, as a function of the simulated mass.

The expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times branching ratio as a function of the DM mediator Z' mass for the current and previous iterations of the analysis. The upper limit of the previous result was obtained with the Bayesian method and is also shown scaled to the 139 fb$^{-1}$ integrated luminosity of the current result to illustrate the effect of the analysis improvements. The current b-tagging requirement is tighter than the previous one for high-$p_T$ jets, resulting in a data sample with limited size for mass above 4 TeV. The background rejection, instead, has improved significantly across the entire mass spectrum inspected by the analysis.

Dependence of the overall signal efficiency on the pT of the long-lived Z' for Z' -> ee. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Dependence of the overall signal efficiency on the transverse decay radius Rxy of the long-lived Z' for Z' -> emu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Dependence of the overall signal efficiency on the pT of the long-lived Z' for Z' -> emu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Dependence of the overall signal efficiency on the transverse decay radius Rxy of the long-lived Z' for Z' -> mumu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Dependence of the overall signal efficiency on the pT of the long-lived Z' for Z' -> mumu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Overall signal efficiency as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda121 scenario of the RPV SUSY model. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Overall signal efficiency as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda122 scenario of the RPV SUSY model. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

95% CL upper limits on the squark-antisquark production cross-section as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda121 scenario of the RPV SUSY model and a 700 GeV squark. The uncertainties of the expected limit indicate the +-1sigma variations.

95% CL upper limits on the squark-antisquark production cross-section as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda122 scenario of the RPV SUSY model and a 700 GeV squark. The uncertainties of the expected limit indicate the +-1sigma variations.

95% CL upper limits on the squark-antisquark production cross-section as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda121 scenario of the RPV SUSY model and a 1600 GeV squark. The uncertainties of the expected limit indicate the +-1sigma variations.

95% CL upper limits on the squark-antisquark production cross-section as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda122 scenario of the RPV SUSY model and a 1600 GeV squark. The uncertainties of the expected limit indicate the +-1sigma variations.

Fraction of detector volume covered by the material veto as a function of z and Rxy of the displaced dilepton vertex.

Fraction of detector volume covered by the disabled pixel modules veto veto as a function of z and Rxy of the displaced dilepton vertex.

Observed Rxy distribution of vertices composed of two non-leptonic tracks in a control sample in the data and the predicted distribution obtained from the event mixing. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.

Rxy distributions of Kshort vertices from the large radius tracking in the data and background MC samples. Data has been normalised such that the total number of Kshort from the standard tracking in the data agrees with the total number of Kshort from the standard tracking in the MC. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.

Acceptance per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> eenu. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.

Acceptance per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> emunu. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.

Acceptance per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> mumunu. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> eenu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> emunu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> mumunu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Overall signal efficiency (acceptance times efficiency) per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> eenu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Overall signal efficiency (acceptance times efficiency) per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> emunu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Overall signal efficiency (acceptance times efficiency) per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> mumunu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Detection efficiency per decay for Rxy < 22 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 22 <= Rxy < 38 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 38 <= Rxy < 73 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 73 <= Rxy < 111 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 111 <= Rxy < 145 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 145 <= Rxy < 300 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.

Detection efficiency per decay for Rxy < 22 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 22 <= Rxy < 38 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 38 <= Rxy < 73 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 73 <= Rxy < 111 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 111 <= Rxy < 145 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 145 <= Rxy < 300 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for Rxy < 22 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 22 <= Rxy < 38 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 38 <= Rxy < 73 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 73 <= Rxy < 111 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 111 <= Rxy < 145 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 145 <= Rxy < 300 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 100 GeV and LLP -> ee.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 100 GeV and LLP -> emu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 100 GeV and LLP -> mumu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 250 GeV and LLP -> ee.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 250 GeV and LLP -> emu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 250 GeV and LLP -> mumu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 500 GeV and LLP -> ee.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 500 GeV and LLP -> emu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 500 GeV and LLP -> mumu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 750 GeV and LLP -> ee.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 750 GeV and LLP -> emu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 750 GeV and LLP -> mumu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 1000 GeV and LLP -> ee.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 1000 GeV and LLP -> emu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 1000 GeV and LLP -> mumu.

Acceptance, detection efficiency, and overall signal efficiency in the Z' toy model for mZ' = 100 GeV, three mean proper lifetimes (ctau) and the three decay modes of the Z'.

Acceptance, detection efficiency, and overall signal efficiency in the Z' toy model for mZ' = 250 GeV, three mean proper lifetimes (ctau) and the three decay modes of the Z'.

Acceptance, detection efficiency, and overall signal efficiency in the Z' toy model for mZ' = 500 GeV, three mean proper lifetimes (ctau) and the three decay modes of the Z'.

Acceptance, detection efficiency, and overall signal efficiency in the Z' toy model for mZ' = 750 GeV, three mean proper lifetimes (ctau) and the three decay modes of the Z'.

Acceptance, detection efficiency, and overall signal efficiency in the Z' toy model for mZ' = 1000 GeV, three mean proper lifetimes (ctau) and the three decay modes of the Z'.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin signal regions of the analysis.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.

$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

The normalisation factors for the dominant backgrounds of the analysis in each of the multi-bin and single-bin regions.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin validation regions to test the $N_{\mathrm{jet}}$ extraction.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin validation regions to test the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ extrapolation.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin validation regions to test the $N_{\mathrm{jet}}$ extraction.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin validation regions to test the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ extrapolation.

The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the two-step decay.

The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the Gtt decay.

The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the RPV decay.

Number of events in each signal region broken down by background type and the number of observed data events.

From left to right; the $95\%$ CL upper limits on the visible cross section (${\langle \epsilon\sigma \rangle}^{95}_{obs}$) and on the number of signal events. Next is the $95\%$ CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number of background events. The last two columns show the confidence level for the background only hypothesis ($CL_{b}$) and the dicovery $p$-value along with the Gaussian significance (Z).

Visualisation of the highest jet multiplicity event selected in signal regions targeting long cascade decays of pair-produced gluinos. This event was recorded by ATLAS on 23 October 2016, and contains 16 jets, illustrated by cones. Yellow blocks represent the calorimeter energy measured in noise-suppressed clusters. Of the reconstructed jets, 13 (11) have transverse momenta above 50 GeV (80 GeV), with 3 (2) being b-tagged. The leading jet has a transverse momentum of 507 GeV, and the sum of jet transverse momenta $H_T=2.9$ TeV. A value of 343 GeV is observed for the $E_{T}^{miss}$, whose direction is shown by the dashed red line, producing a significance $S(E_{T}^{miss})=6.4$. The sum of the masses of large-radius jets is evaluated as $M_{J}^{\Sigma}=1070$ GeV.

Visualisation of the highest jet multiplicity event selected in a control region used to make predictions of the background from multijet production. This event was recorded by ATLAS on 18 July 2018, and contains 19 jets, illustrated by cones. Yellow blocks represent the calorimeter energy measured in in noise-suppressed clusters. Of the reconstructed jets, 16 (10) have transverse momenta above 50 GeV (80 GeV). No jets were b-tagged. The leading et has a transverse momentum of 371 GeV, and the sum of jet transverse momenta $H_T=2.2$ TeV. A value of 8 GeV is observed for the $E_{T}^{miss}$, whose direction is shown by the dashed red line, producing a significance $S(E_{T}^{miss})=0.2$. The sum of the masses of large-radius jets is evaluated as $M_{J}^{\Sigma}=767$ GeV.

The $\pi^0$ invariant mass peak positions and widths as a function of $p_{T}$ in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The $\pi^0$ invariant mass peak positions and widths as a function of $p_{T}$ in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The $\pi^0$ invariant mass peak positions and widths as a function of $p_{T}$ in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The $\pi^0$ invariant mass peak positions and widths as a function of $p_{T}$ in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The $\pi^0$ invariant mass peak positions and widths as a function of $p_{T}$ in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The $\pi^0$ invariant mass peak positions and widths as a function of $p_{T}$ in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Photon conversion point radius distribution from real data and MC simulation in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Conversion probability correction factor for $\pi^0$ as a function of $p_{T}$

The overall detection efficiency of $\pi^0$ from embedding studt in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The overall detection efficiency of $\pi^0$ from embedding studt in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The overall detection efficiency of $\pi^0$ from embedding studt in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Invariant yield of STAR $\pi^0$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at midrapidity for different collision centrality bins in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Invariant yield of STAR $\pi^0$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at midrapidity for different collision centrality bins in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Invariant yield of STAR $\pi^0$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at midrapidity for different collision centrality bins in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The ratios of STAR $\pi^0$ spectra over $\pi^{\pm}$ from STAR and $\pi^0$ from PHENIX for different collision centrality bins in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The nuclear modification factor $R_{CP}$ as a functon of $p_{T}$ of STAR $\pi^0$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ as a functon of $p_{T}$ of STAR $\pi^0$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Fig. 2. (Color online.) Event-by-event photon multiplicity distributions (solid circles) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV} .$ The distributions for top $0-5 \%$ central $\mathrm{Au}+$ Au collisions and top $0-10 \%$ central $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions are also shown (open circles). The photon multiplicity distributions for central collisions are observed to be Gaussian (solid line). Only statistical errors are shown. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 2. (Color online.) Event-by-event photon multiplicity distributions (solid circles) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV} .$ The distributions for top $0-5 \%$ central $\mathrm{Au}+$ Au collisions and top $0-10 \%$ central $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions are also shown (open circles). The photon multiplicity distributions for central collisions are observed to be Gaussian (solid line). Only statistical errors are shown. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 2. (Color online.) Event-by-event photon multiplicity distributions (solid circles) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV} .$ The distributions for top $0-5 \%$ central $\mathrm{Au}+$ Au collisions and top $0-10 \%$ central $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions are also shown (open circles). The photon multiplicity distributions for central collisions are observed to be Gaussian (solid line). Only statistical errors are shown. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several centrality classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several centrality classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several centrality classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 4. (Color online.) Top panel: The number of photons divided by $\left\langle N_{\text{part}}\right\rangle / 2$ as a function of average number of participating nucleons for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s} _{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ for $-3.7<\eta<-2.3 .$ Errors shown are systematic only and include those for $\left\langle N_{\text {part }}\right\rangle .$ Results from HIJING are shown as lines (solid for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and dashed for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ ). Bottom panel: Same as above, for both photons and charged particles from PHOBOS [10]. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 4. (Color online.) Top panel: The number of photons divided by $\left\langle N_{\text{part}}\right\rangle / 2$ as a function of average number of participating nucleons for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s} _{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ for $-3.7<\eta<-2.3 .$ Errors shown are systematic only and include those for $\left\langle N_{\text {part }}\right\rangle .$ Results from HIJING are shown as lines (solid for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and dashed for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ ). Bottom panel: Same as above, for both photons and charged particles from PHOBOS [10]. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 5. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions normalized by the average number of participating nucleon pairs for different collision centralities are plotted as a function of pseudorapidity shifted by the beam rapidity (-5.36 for $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ and -4.19 for $62.4 \mathrm{GeV}$ ) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$. Errors are systematic only, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. For clarity of presentation, results for only four centralities are shown. The $\mathrm{Cu}+$ Cu data are shifted by 0.1 unit in $\eta-y_{\text {beam }} .$ The solid line is a second order polynomial fit to the data (see text for details).

Fig. 5. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions normalized by the average number of participating nucleon pairs for different collision centralities are plotted as a function of pseudorapidity shifted by the beam rapidity (-5.36 for $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ and -4.19 for $62.4 \mathrm{GeV}$ ) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$. Errors are systematic only, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. For clarity of presentation, results for only four centralities are shown. The $\mathrm{Cu}+$ Cu data are shifted by 0.1 unit in $\eta-y_{\text {beam }} .$ The solid line is a second order polynomial fit to the data (see text for details).

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 predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Higgs boson mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Higgs boson mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Higgs boson mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Higgs boson mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.

The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.

The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.

Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.

Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.

Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.

Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.

Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.

Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.

Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.

Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The observed 95% CL upper limits with one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.

The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.