Exclusive J/psi photoproduction cross section in gamma-p.

Dissociative J/psi photoproduction gamma-p.

Cross section ratio, dissociative J/psi photoproduction gamma-p over exclusive J/psi photoproduction gamma-p.

$\gamma p \rightarrow J/\psi p$ differential cross sections 10.36–11.44 GeV beam energy range, average $t$ and beam energy in bins of $t$. The first cross section uncertainties are statistical, and the second are systematic. The overall average beam energy is 10.82 GeV. There is an additional fully correlated systematic uncertainty of 19.5% on the total cross section, not included here.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.4$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.4$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.4$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ at NNLO QCD.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ at NNLO QCD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Electron $p_{T}$ distribution using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

$p_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in the electron channel using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

Muon $p_T$ distribution using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

$p_T^{miss}$ distribution in the muon channel using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

$M_T$ distribution for the E+INVISIBLE system using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

$M_T$ distribution for the MU+INVISIBLE system using 2016-2018 data sets. The complete set of selection criteria were applied. Two examples of SSM WPRIME boson signal samples with masses of 3.8 and 5.6 TeV are shown. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM prediction, and the shaded band represents the systematic uncertainties.

Theoretical prediction for the production and decay cross-section of SSM WPRIME bosons (W --> LEPTON + NU) as a function of the WPRIME mass, for the range 200-6400 GeV and inclusive in phase-space (no cuts). The uncertainty shown covers PDF and ALPHAS uncertainties. These theoretical predictions are obtained with PYTHIA (LO) and corrected to NNLO in QCD using FEWZ program.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the product of WPRIME cross-section production and BF(WPRIME --> LEPTON + NU) for an SSM WPRIME boson, as a function of the boson mass, for the electron decay channel. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits. The theoretical predictions for the SSM at NNLO precision in QCD are shown with narrow gray bands corresponding to the PDF and ALPHAS uncertainties.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the product of WPRIME cross-section production and BF(WPRIME --> LEPTON + NU) for an SSM WPRIME boson, as a function of the boson mass, for the muon decay channel. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits. The theoretical predictions for the SSM at NNLO precision in QCD are shown with narrow gray bands corresponding to the PDF and ALPHAS uncertainties.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the product of WPRIME cross-section production and BF(WPRIME --> LEPTON + NU) for an SSM WPRIME boson, as a function of the boson mass, for the combined electron and muon decay channels. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits. The theoretical predictions for the SSM at NNLO precision in QCD are shown with narrow gray bands corresponding to the PDF and ALPHAS uncertainties.

The 95% CL observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) model independent cross section upper limits as function of the $MT_{min}$ threshold, for the electron decay channel. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits.

The 95% CL observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) model independent cross section upper limits as function of the $MT_{min}$ threshold, for the muon decay channel. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits.

The 95% CL observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) model independent cross section upper limits as function of the $MT_{min}$ threshold, for the combined electron and muon decay channels. The shaded bands represent the one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the coupling strength ratio, gWprime/gW as a function of the mass of the WPRIME boson, for the electron channel. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The area above the limit curve is excluded. The dotted line represents the case of SSM coupling, gWprime, being equal to gW, the SM coupling.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the coupling strength ratio, gWprime/gW, as a function of the mass of the WPRIME boson, for the muon channel. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The area above the limit curve is excluded. The dotted line represents the case of SSM coupling, gWprime , being equal to gW, the SM coupling.

Exclusion limits in the 2D plane (1/R, $\mu$) for the split-UED interpretation for the n = 2 case, for the electron channel for the 2016-2018 data sets. R is the radius of the additional spatial dimension and $\mu$ the bulk mass for the fermion field in five dimensions. The expected limit is depicted as a black dashed line. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The experimentally excluded region is the entire area to the left of the solid black line.

Exclusion limits in the 2D plane (1/R, $\mu$) for the split-UED interpretation for the n = 2 case, for the muon channel for the 2016-2018 data sets. R is the radius of the additional spatial dimension and $\mu$ the bulk mass for the fermion field in five dimensions. The expected limit is depicted as a black dashed line. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The experimentally excluded region is the entire area to the left of the solid black line.

Exclusion limits in the 2D plane (1/R, $\mu$) for the split-UED interpretation for the n = 2 case, for the combined electron and muon channels for the 2016-2018 data sets. R is the radius of the additional spatial dimension and $\mu$ the bulk mass for the fermion field in five dimensions. The expected limit is depicted as a black dashed line. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The experimentally excluded region is the entire area to the left of the solid black line.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the ${\lambda}_{231}$ coupling in the RPV SUSY model with a STAU mediator, as a function of the mass of STAU, for the electron channel and for the production coupling, ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$=0.5 . The couplings ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$, ${\lambda}_{231}$, and ${\lambda}_{132}$ are defined in Fig. 1. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The area above the limit curve is excluded. Limits for other values of ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$ are obtained multiplying the ones shown by the ratio ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$/0.5

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at 95% CL on the ${\lambda}_{132}$ coupling in the RPV SUSY model with a stau mediator, as a function of the mass of the stau, for the muon channel and for the production coupling, ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$ = 0.5 . The couplings ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$, ${\lambda}_{231}$, and ${\lambda}_{132}$ are defined in Fig. 1. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation uncertainty bands for the expected limits are shown. The area above the limit curve is excluded. Limits for other values of ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$ are obtained multiplying these ones by the ratio ${\lambda}^{'}_{3ij}$/0.5

Region in the oblique (W,Y) parameter phase space allowed by the current analysis at 95% CL. The combination of the electron and muon channel distributions from the 2017 and 2018 data sets at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV is used, having 101 fb-1 of luminosity.

Negative Log-Likelihood for the determination of the oblique W parameter, for the combination of the electron and muon channel and for 2017 and 2018 data sets (L=101 fb-1) at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV.

Total background estimate and observed data in all bins used in the limit calculation for the SSM WPRIME limits. The total event sample is split into the three years of data taking and the two lepton flavors.The distributions being shown are $M_T$ ones. The associated integrated luminosities for each year are of 35.9, 41.5, and 59.4 fb$̣^{-1}. The mass bins are numbered in ascending order.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits on the ratio $g_{W'}/g_{W}$ for an SSM-like W$\prime$ boson are shown. The unity coupling ratio (blue dotted curve) corresponds to the SSM common benchmark. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian lower exclusion limits on the NUGIM G(221) mixing angle $\cot(\theta_{E})$ are shown as a function of the W$\prime$ boson mass. The theoretically excluded region is shaded in grey. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of a QBH in an associated $ au$ lepton and neutrino final state. Minimum threshold masses $m_{th}$ of up to 6.6 TeV are excluded at 95% CL. The observed limit (solid line) is obtained from the intersection with the LO QBH cross section (blue dotted curve). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of the process $pp\rightarrow\tau\nu$ mediated via LQ exchange in the t-channel. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The predicted LQ cross section at LO in the three coupling benchmark scenarios is depicted in different colors for $g_{U}=1$. The uncertainty bandy correspond to the sum in quadrature of PDF and scale variations. The first benchmark scenario considers only couplings to left-handed SM fermions (i.e. $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$) and is referred to as "best fit LH". The second benchmark, referred to as "best fit LH+RH", considers $|\beta_{\text{R}}^{\text{b}\tau}|=1$ and all other $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$. In the third "democratic" benchmark, equal couplings only to LH fermions are assumed, i.e. $\beta_{\text{L}}^{ij}=1$ and $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$ for all $i$ and $j$.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH+RH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the democratic scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on each of the Wilson coefficients described by the EFT model based on 2016-2018 data. The three different coupling types represent a left-handed vector coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{L}$), tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{T}$), and scalar-tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{S_{L}}$). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Summary of exclusion limits (expected and observed) calculated at 95% CL for full Run-2 CMS data.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 4.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 4.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to 41.3 fb$^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement (cumulative) for various signal hypothesis. The requirements listed are presented as total efficiencies w.r.t. the previous selection step.

Parametrization of the $A_{X}$ factor, defined as the fraction of diphoton resonances satisfying the fiducial acceptance at the particle level, as function of $m_{X}$ obtained from the narrow width simulated signal samples produced in gluon fusion.

The correction factor, $C_{X}$, defined as the ratio between the number of reconstructed signal events passing the analysis cuts and the number of signal events at the particle level generated within the fiducial volume, and acceptance correction factor, $A_{X}$, defined as the fraction of diphoton resonances satisfying the fiducial acceptance at the particle level. Both are computed for NWA spin-0 models as a function of $m_{X}$.

Effect of event selections on a scalar MC signal sample generated for $m_{X}$ = 15 GeV and on the data. For the MC sample, the efficiencies are shown after applying event weights and a truth level filter that requires two photons with $p^{\gamma\gamma}_{T}>40$ GeV; for the data, the absolute yields are shown. The initial yields for data include a trigger preselection that is the OR of a list of single photon and diphoton triggers. The "2 $loose$ photons" step includes the kinematic acceptance cuts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distribution of ${E}_{T}^{miss}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the electron channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 3-jets VR, without applying the cut on ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of ${E}_{T}^{miss}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the electron channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 4-jets VR, without applying the cut on ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the signal region, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the $W$+jets VR, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 3-jets VR, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 4-jets VR, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Expected distributions of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR, for the s-channel single-top signal, and for the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets backgrounds, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. Each distribution is normalised to unity. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the $W$+jets VR. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit presented in Section 5 in the paper. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty and the normalisation uncertainties for the various processes in each bin, summed in quadrature. The ratio of the observed number to the predicted number of events in each bin is shown in the lower panel of the figure, with different vertical axis ranges. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit described in Section 8 in the paper, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the $t\bar{t}$ 3-jets VR. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit presented in Section 5 in the paper. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty and the normalisation uncertainties for the various processes in each bin, summed in quadrature. The ratio of the observed number to the predicted number of events in each bin is shown in the lower panel of the figure, with different vertical axis ranges. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit described in Section 8 in the paper, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the $t\bar{t}$ 4-jets VR. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit presented in Section 5 in the paper. The uncertainty bands indicate the simulation's statistical uncertainty and the normalisation uncertainties for the various processes in each bin, summed in quadrature. The ratio of the observed number to the predicted number of events in each bin is shown in the lower panel of the figure, with different vertical axis ranges. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit described in Section 8 in the paper, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR before the fit to data, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction, with different vertical axis ranges. The uncertainty band indicates the total uncertainties and their correlations in each bin. The uncertainties in the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, as well as in the s-channel signal cross-section, are not defined pre-fit and therefore not included. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR after the fit to data, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction, with different vertical axis ranges. The uncertainty band indicates the total uncertainties and their correlations in each bin. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR after the fit to data, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$, after subtraction of all backgrounds. The fitted distribution for the simulation of the signal is shown together with the post-fit uncertainty in the backgrounds. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Pre-fit and post-fit event yields in the SR, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. The central value of the event yield for each process is calculated by summing the values of the discriminant bin contents, using the nominal expected yield for the pre-fit value, and the best-fit estimate for the post-fit value. The error includes statistical and systematic uncertainties summed in quadrature. All sources of systematic uncertainties are included, taking into account correlations and anti-correlations in the post-fit case. The uncertainties in the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, as well as in the s-channel signal cross-section, are not defined pre-fit and therefore only included in the post-fit uncertainties.

Observed impact of the different sources of uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section, grouped by categories. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. The 'Systematic uncertainties' category combines all sources of systematic uncertainties. The statistical uncertainty is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed all nuisance parameters, including the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors. 'Total' gives the total uncertainty on the measurement.

Observed impact of the different sources of $t\bar{t}$ modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, and 'ME/PS matching' to the matching of the ME to the parton shower.

Observed impact of the different sources of s-channel modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, as described in Section 7 in the paper.

Observed impact of the different sources of t-channel modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, as described in Section 7 in the paper.

Observed impact of the different sources of $tW$ modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section, grouped by categories. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, and '$t\bar{t}$ overlap' to the algorithm removing the overlap between $tW$ and $t\bar{t}$ production at NLO, as described in Section 7 in the paper.

Observed impact of the different sources of PDF uncertainties on the measured s-channel signal cross-section, grouped by categories. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the leading-jet $p_{T}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the leading-jet $\eta$. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the subleading-jet $p_{T}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the subleading-jet $\eta$. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the lepton $p_{T}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the lepton $\eta$. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the $m_{T}^{W}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Nuisance parameters ranked according to their post-fit impacts on the best-fit value of the ratio $\mu$ of the measured cross-section to the predicted cross-section. In the figure, only the 20 nuisance parameters with the largest post-fit impacts are shown. The empty (solid) blue rectangles illustrate the pre-fit (post-fit) impact on $\mu$, corresponding to the upper axis. The pre-fit (post-fit) impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta\mu$, is calculated as the difference in the fitted value of $\mu$ between the nominal fit and the fit when fixing the corresponding nuisance parameter to $\hat{\theta}\pm\Delta\theta$ ($\hat{\theta}\pm\Delta\hat{\theta}$), where $\hat{\theta}$ is the best-fit value of the nuisance parameter and $\Delta\theta$ ($\Delta\hat{\theta}$) is its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainty. Several systematic uncertainties are split into different nuisance parameters, which are indicated by NP. JES (JER) indicates jet energy scale (resolution), and $\gamma$ indicates a nuisance parameter associated to the MC statistics in one of the 18 bins numbered from 0 to 17. The black points show the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters, with the error bars representing the post-fit uncertainties. Each nuisance parameter is shown wrt. its nominal value, $\theta_0$, and in units of its pre-fit uncertainty, except the free-floating normalisation factors of the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets backgrounds, and the parameters associated to the MC statistics in each bin, for which the post-fit values and uncertainties are shown.

Correlation matrix of the nuisance parameters and of the ratio $\mu$ of the measured cross-section to the predicted cross-section. The correlations are given after the fit to data. In the figure, only the parameters which have a correlation of at least 0.2 with any other parameter are shown.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$, for the collision data used for the measurement, and for 1000 pseudo-data replicas, generated using a bootstrapping technique, in order to assess the statistical correlations between this measurement and others, for the purpose of combinations. The replicas are obtained by reweighting each observed data event by a random integer generated according to Poisson statistics, using the <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5361038">BootstrapGenerator</a> software package , which implements a technique described in <a href="https://cds.cern.ch/record/2759945/">ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011</a>. The ATLAS event number and run number of each event are used as seed to uniquely but reproducibly initialise the random number generator for each event. Each pseudo-data replica is assigned an index, ranging from 0 to 999, corresponding to the random number index used consistently for each observed data event.

Measured values of the signal cross-section and of the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, obtained by statistical-only fits to the collision data used for the measurement, and to 1000 pseudo-data replicas, generated using a bootstrapping technique, in order to assess the statistical correlations between this measurement and others, for the purpose of combinations. The central values and their statistical uncertainties are obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed all nuisance parameters, except the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, which are let free-floating (unlike for the statistical uncertainty on the cross-section quoted in the paper). The replicas are obtained by reweighting each observed data event by a random integer generated according to Poisson statistics, using the <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5361038">BootstrapGenerator</a> software package , which implements a technique described in <a href="https://cds.cern.ch/record/2759945/">ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011</a>. The ATLAS event number and run number of each event are used as seed to uniquely but reproducibly initialise the random number generator for each event. Each pseudo-data replica is assigned an index, ranging from 0 to 999, corresponding to the random number index used consistently for each observed data event.

The $m_{jj}$ distributions for the CRs and the BDT classifier response distribution for the SR after the fit in all regions. The dashed line shows the total background distribution before the fit. The vertical error bars on the data points correspond to the data's statistical uncertainty. Overflows are included in the last bin. The uncertainty band corresponds to the combination of the MC statistical uncertainty and systematic uncertainties obtained in the fit.

The $m_{jj}$ distributions for the CRs and the BDT classifier response distribution for the SR after the fit in all regions. The dashed line shows the total background distribution before the fit. The vertical error bars on the data points correspond to the data's statistical uncertainty. Overflows are included in the last bin. The uncertainty band corresponds to the combination of the MC statistical uncertainty and systematic uncertainties obtained in the fit.

The $m_{jj}$ distributions for the CRs and the BDT classifier response distribution for the SR after the fit in all regions. The dashed line shows the total background distribution before the fit. The vertical error bars on the data points correspond to the data's statistical uncertainty. Overflows are included in the last bin. The uncertainty band corresponds to the combination of the MC statistical uncertainty and systematic uncertainties obtained in the fit.

Observed and expected event yields for the signal and all of the background processes considered in this analysis after the fit to the data in all of the regions. The uncertainty on the expected yield is the combination of statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained in the fit. The individual uncertainties can be correlated and do not necessarily add in quadrature to equal the total background uncertainty.

Summary of the event yield for processes in all regions, after the fit over all regions. The dashed line shows the total background distribution before the fit. The vertical error bars on the data points correspond to the data's statistical uncertainty. The uncertainty band corresponds to the combination of the MC statistical uncertainty and systematic uncertainties obtained in the fit.

Impact of different components of systematic uncertainty on the measured cross section, without taking into account the correlations. The impact is calculated by fixing the value of the corresponding nuisance parameters to the values obtained in the fit used to measure the cross section, performing the fit, estimating the signal strength uncertainty and subtracting it from the nominal uncertainty in quadrature.

Fitted POI values for this analysis, the previous ATLAS analysis, and their combination. The first and second columns present the values obtained in the individual analyses. The third column presents the values obtained in the combination.

Observed and expected one-dimensional limits on dimension 8 aQGC parameters. Limits are obtained by setting all aQGCs parameters except one to zero. Unitarity is not preserved.

Observed and expected one-dimensional limits on dimension 8 aQGC parameters in the region, where unitarity is preserved. Cutoff scales in MC, $E_{c}$, are given for each parameter. Limits are obtained by setting all aQGCs parameters except one to zero.

The $E_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution in the SR after the fit in the control regions. The red (green) line shows the expected number of events in the case of non-zero EFT coefficient $f_{T0}/\Lambda^4$ ($f_{M0}/\Lambda^4$) with the value shown in the legend. The vertical error bars on the data points correspond to the data statistical uncertainty. Overflows are included in the last bin. The uncertainty band corresponds to the combination of the MC statistical uncertainty and systematic uncertainties obtained in the fit.

Evolution of the expected (red line) and observed (blue line) limits versus $E_{c}$ values for $f_{T0}/\Lambda^4$. The unitarity bound is shown by the black line. The $E_{c}<4$ TeV regime was obtained with $E_{T}^{\gamma} > 600$ GeV. The $E_{c} \geq 4$ TeV regime was obtained with $E_{T}^{\gamma} > 900$ GeV.

Evolution of the expected (red line) and observed (blue line) limits versus $E_{c}$ values for $f_{T5}/\Lambda^4$. The unitarity bound is shown by the black line. The $E_{c}<4$ TeV regime was obtained with $E_{T}^{\gamma} > 600$ GeV. The $E_{c} \geq 4$ TeV regime was obtained with $E_{T}^{\gamma} > 900$ GeV.

Evolution of the expected (red line) and observed (blue line) limits versus $E_{c}$ values for $f_{T8}/\Lambda^4$. The unitarity bound is shown by the black line. The $E_{c}<4$ TeV regime was obtained with $E_{T}^{\gamma} > 600$ GeV. The $E_{c} \geq 4$ TeV regime was obtained with $E_{T}^{\gamma} > 900$ GeV.

Evolution of the expected (red line) and observed (blue line) limits versus $E_{c}$ values for $f_{T9}/\Lambda^4$. The unitarity bound is shown by the black line. The $E_{c}<4$ TeV regime was obtained with $E_{T}^{\gamma} > 600$ GeV. The $E_{c} \geq 4$ TeV regime was obtained with $E_{T}^{\gamma} > 900$ GeV.

Evolution of the expected (red line) and observed (blue line) limits versus $E_{c}$ values for $f_{M0}/\Lambda^4$. The unitarity bound is shown by the black line. The $E_{c}<4$ TeV regime was obtained with $E_{T}^{\gamma} > 400$ GeV. The $E_{c} \geq 4$ TeV regime was obtained with $E_{T}^{\gamma} > 900$ GeV.

Evolution of the expected (red line) and observed (blue line) limits versus $E_{c}$ values for $f_{M1}/\Lambda^4$. The unitarity bound is shown by the black line. The $E_{c}<4$ TeV regime was obtained with $E_{T}^{\gamma} > 400$ GeV. The $E_{c} \geq 4$ TeV regime was obtained with $E_{T}^{\gamma} > 900$ GeV.

Evolution of the expected (red line) and observed (blue line) limits versus $E_{c}$ values for $f_{M2}/\Lambda^4$. The unitarity bound is shown by the black line. The $E_{c}<4$ TeV regime was obtained with $E_{T}^{\gamma} > 400$ GeV. The $E_{c} \geq 4$ TeV regime was obtained with $E_{T}^{\gamma} > 900$ GeV.

Correlation matrix of the parameters for the fit in all regions. Only parameters with absolute value of the correlation coefficient larger than 10 are shown.

Correlation matrix for the measurement of STXS parameters in each of the 28 regions considered.

Fitted values for kappa_g and kappa_y.

Correlation matrix for the measurement of kappa_g and kappa_y.

Summary of the 68% CL confidence intervals for individual measurements of SMEFT parameters observed in data. In each case, SMEFT parameters other than the one measured are fixed to 0.

Results of the EV parameter measurement in data, in the linear and linear+quadratic parameterizations of the SMEFT. All the EVs parameters are free to vary in the fits. The ranges correspond to 68% CL confidence intervals.

Observed linear correlation coefficients of the EVs parameters in the linear parameterization.

Observed linear correlation coefficients of the EVs parameters in the linear+quadratic parameterization.

Cross-sections times H->yy branching ratio for ggF +bbH, VBF, VH, ttH, and tH production. The values are obtained from a simultaneous fit to all categories. The theory uncertainties in the predictions include uncertainties due to missing higher-order terms in the perturbative QCD calculations and choices of parton distribution functions and value of alpha_s, as well as the H->yy branching ratio uncertainty.

Best-fit values and uncertainties for STXS parameters in each of the 28 regions considered. The values for the gg->H process also include the contributions from bbH production.

Correlation matrix for the measurement of STXS parameters in each of the 33 regions considered.

The observed and expected (in parentheses) 95% CL lower mass limits on RPV SUSY, Z′ ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) , and QBH signals for the e$\mu$, e$\tau$, and $\mu\tau$ channels.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the $ au$ sneutrino mass in an RPV SUSY model for the e$\mu$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red and blue solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the tau sneutrino mass for two different values of couplings.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the $ au$ sneutrino mass in an RPV SUSY model for the e$\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red and blue solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the tau sneutrino mass for two different values of couplings.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the $ au$ sneutrino mass in an RPV SUSY model for the $\mu\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red and blue solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the tau sneutrino mass for two different values of couplings.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for a Z′ ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) boson with LFV decays, in the e$\mu$ channel.The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the Z′ mass.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for a Z′ ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) boson with LFV decays, in the e$\tau$ channel.The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the Z′ mass.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for a Z′ ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) boson with LFV decays, in the $\mu\tau$ channel.The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the Z′ mass.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for quantum black hole production in an ADD model with $n=4$ extra dimensions, in the e$\mu$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the QBH threshold mass.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for quantum black hole production in an ADD model with $n=4$ extra dimensions, in the e$\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the QBH threshold mass.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for quantum black hole production in an ADD model with $n=4$ extra dimensions, in the $\mu\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the QBH threshold mass.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the RPV SUSY model in the plane of $\tau$ sneutrino mass and $\lambda'$ coupling, for four values of $\lambda$ couplings for the e$\mu$ channel. The regions to the left of and above the curves are excluded.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the RPV SUSY model in the plane of $\tau$ sneutrino mass and $\lambda'$ coupling, for four values of $\lambda$ couplings for the e$\tau$ channel. The regions to the left of and above the curves are excluded.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the RPV SUSY model in the plane of $\tau$ sneutrino mass and $\lambda'$ coupling, for four values of $\lambda$ couplings for the $\mu\tau$ channel. The regions to the left of and above the curves are excluded.

Model-independent upper limits at 95% CL on the product of cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance are shown. Observed (expected) limits are shown in black solid (dashed) lines for the e$\mu$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits.

Model-independent upper limits at 95% CL on the product of cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance are shown. Observed (expected) limits are shown in black solid (dashed) lines for the e$\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits.

Model-independent upper limits at 95% CL on the product of cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance are shown. Observed (expected) limits are shown in black solid (dashed) lines for the $\mu\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 2.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 2.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 2.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 2.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 2.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 2.

Final state radiation correction used in the $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ cross-section measurement. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Final state radiation correction used in the $y^{Z}-p_{T}^{Z}$ cross-section measurement. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Final state radiation correction used in the $y^{Z}-\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ cross-section measurement. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for one-dimensional $y^Z$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for one-dimensional $p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for one-dimensional $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for one-dimensional $y^Z$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for one-dimensional $p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for one-dimensional $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Measured total $Z$-boson cross-section for different datasets. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $p_{T}^{Z}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $p_{T}^{Z}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Systematic uncertainties in the single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $p_{T}^{Z}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $p_{T}^{Z}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Transverse-momentum spectra ratios of $\mathrm{D^0}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidityto the INEL>0 event class.

Transverse-momentum spectra ratios of $\mathrm{D_s^+}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidityto the INEL>0 event class.

Transverse-momentum spectra ratios of $\mathrm{\Lambda_c^+}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidityto the INEL>0 event class.

The $\mathrm{D_s^+ / D^0}$ ratio measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidity

The $\mathrm{D_s^+ / D^0}$ ratio measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidity

The $\mathrm{\Lambda_c^+ / D^0}$ ratio measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the V0M estimator at forward rapidity

The $\mathrm{\Lambda_c^+ / D^0}$ ratio measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the V0M estimator at forward rapidity

The extrapolated $p_\mathrm{T}$-integrated $\mathrm{\Lambda_c^+ / D^0}$ ratio measured as a function of $\langle \mathrm{d}N_\mathrm{ch}/\mathrm{d}\eta \rangle$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV

Transverse-momentum spectra of $\mathrm{D^0}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidity.

Transverse-momentum spectra of $\mathrm{D_s^+}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidity.

Transverse-momentum spectra of $\mathrm{\Lambda_c^+}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidity.

Transverse-momentum spectra ratios of $\mathrm{D^0}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidityto the INEL>0 event class.

Transverse-momentum spectra ratios of $\mathrm{D_s^+}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidityto the INEL>0 event class.

Transverse-momentum spectra ratios of $\mathrm{\Lambda_c^+}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidityto the INEL>0 event class.

The visible $p_\mathrm{T}$-integrated $\mathrm{D_s^+ / D^0}$ ratio measured as a function of $\langle \mathrm{d}N_\mathrm{ch}/\mathrm{d}\eta \rangle$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV

The visible $p_\mathrm{T}$-integrated $\mathrm{\Lambda_c^+ / D^0}$ ratio measured as a function of $\langle \mathrm{d}N_\mathrm{ch}/\mathrm{d}\eta \rangle$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV

The extrapolated $p_\mathrm{T}$-integrated $\mathrm{D_s^+ / D^0}$ ratio measured as a function of $\langle \mathrm{d}N_\mathrm{ch}/\mathrm{d}\eta \rangle$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the b* RH hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the b* VL hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the B+b hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction of the B+t hypothesis at a 95% CL. Dashed colored lines show the expected limits from the l+jets and all-hadronic channels, where the latter start at resonance masses of 1.4 TeV. The observed and expected limits from the combination are shown as solid and dashed black lines, respectively. The green and yellow bands show the 68 and 95% confidence intervals on the combined expected limits.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with scalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with scalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with pseudoscalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with pseudoscalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the fundamental Planck scale $M_{D}$ as a function of the number of extra dimensions $d$.

Exclusion limits on the fundamental Planck scale $M_{D}$ as a function of the number of extra dimensions $d$.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Tagging efficiency for AK8 jets. The efficiency includes the effect of the machine-learning based DeepAK8 tagger, as well as the application of the mass window requirement on the jet. The efficiency is split depending on the matching generator-level object. For reinterpretation purposes, this efficiency can directly be applied to any AK8 jet that is matched to a given type of generator-level object, with no prior selection on the jet mass. Other acceptance requirements on jet $\p_{T}$ and $\eta$ should still be applied.

Tagging efficiency for AK8 jets. The efficiency includes the effect of the machine-learning based DeepAK8 tagger, as well as the application of the mass window requirement on the jet. The efficiency is split depending on the matching generator-level object. For reinterpretation purposes, this efficiency can directly be applied to any AK8 jet that is matched to a given type of generator-level object, with no prior selection on the jet mass. Other acceptance requirements on jet $\p_{T}$ and $\eta$ should still be applied.

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of h-h correlation function with $3<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of $K_S^0$-h correlation function with $3<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of $K_S^0$-h correlation function with $3<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation function with $3<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation function with $3<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of h-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of h-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of $K_S^0$-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of $K_S^0$-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

The measured single-differential cross sections in leading jet transverse momenta for the pure electroweak Z$\gamma$jj production. The total uncertainty includes the stastical uncertianty and the systematic uncertainty, while the uncertainty of the predicted results is the theoretical uncertainty from the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. The last bin includes overflow events.

The measured single-differential cross sections in leading lepton transverse momenta for the pure electroweak Z$\gamma$jj production. The total uncertainty includes the stastical uncertianty and the systematic uncertainty, while the uncertainty of the predicted results is the theoretical uncertainty from the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. The last bin includes overflow events.

The measured double-differential cross sections as functions of $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$ and $|\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{jj}}|$ for the pure electroweak Z$\gamma$jj production. The total uncertainty includes the stastical uncertianty and the systematic uncertainty, while the uncertainty of the predicted results is the theoretical uncertainty from the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. The last bin includes overflow events.

The measured single-differential cross sections in photon transverse momenta for the combined QCD-induced and electroweak Z$\gamma$jj production. The total uncertainty includes the stastical uncertianty and the systematic uncertainty, while the uncertainty of the predicted results is the theoretical uncertainty from the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. The last bin includes overflow events.

The measured single-differential cross sections in leading jet transverse momenta for the combined QCD-induced and electroweak Z$\gamma$jj production. The total uncertainty includes the stastical uncertianty and the systematic uncertainty, while the uncertainty of the predicted results is the theoretical uncertainty from the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. The last bin includes overflow events.

The measured single-differential cross sections in leading lepton transverse momenta for the combined QCD-induced and electroweak Z$\gamma$jj production. The total uncertainty includes the stastical uncertianty and the systematic uncertainty, while the uncertainty of the predicted results is the theoretical uncertainty from the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. The last bin includes overflow events.

The measured double-differential cross sections as functions of $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$ and $|\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{jj}}|$ for the combined QCD-induced and electroweak Z$\gamma$jj production. The total uncertainty includes the stastical uncertianty and the systematic uncertainty, while the uncertainty of the predicted results is the theoretical uncertainty from the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. The last bin includes overflow events.

The expected and observed limits on the aQGC parameters at 95% confidence level. The last column presents the scattering energy values for which the amplitude would violate unitarity for the observed value of the aQGC parameter. All coupling parameter limits are set in TeV$^{-4}$, whereas the unitarity bounds are in TeV.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $2.5<y<3$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $3<y<3.25$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $3.25<y<3.5$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $3.5<y<4$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $2.5<y<2.75$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $2.75<y<3$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $3<y<3.25$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $3.25<y<3.5$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $3.5<y<4$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of rapidity at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $1<p_T<2$ GeV/$c$ interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of rapidity at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $2<p_T<5$ GeV/$c$ interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of rapidity at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $5<p_T<8$ GeV/$c$ interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of rapidity at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $1<p_T<2$ GeV/$c$ interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of rapidity at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $2<p_T<5$ GeV/$c$ interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of rapidity at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $5<p_T<10$ GeV/$c$ interval.

$\phi$ meson production integrated cross section as a function of $\sqrt{s}$ for $1.5 < p_\mathrm{T} <5$ GeV/$c$ at forward rapidity in pp collisions.

List of relative uncertainties of the measured inclusive $t\bar{t}\text{Z}$ cross section from the combined fit. The uncertainties are symmetrised for presentation and grouped into the categories described in the text. The quadratic sum of the individual uncertainties is not equal to the total uncertainty due to correlations introduced by the fit.

The definitions of the trilepton signal regions: for the inclusive measurement, a combination of the regions with pseudo-continuous $b$-tagging 3$\ell$-Z-1$b$4$j$-PCBT and 3$\ell$-Z-2$b$3$j$-PCBT is used, whereas for the differential measurement, only the region 3$\ell$-Z-2$b$3$j$, with a fixed $b$-tagging WP is employed.

The definitions of the trilepton signal regions: for the inclusive measurement, a combination of the regions with pseudo-continuous $b$-tagging 3$\ell$-Z-1$b$4$j$-PCBT and 3$\ell$-Z-2$b$3$j$-PCBT is used, whereas for the differential measurement, only the region 3$\ell$-Z-2$b$3$j$, with a fixed $b$-tagging WP is employed.

The definitions of the four tetralepton signal regions. The regions are defined to target different $b$-jet multiplicities and flavour combinations of the non-Z leptons.

The definitions of the four tetralepton signal regions. The regions are defined to target different $b$-jet multiplicities and flavour combinations of the non-Z leptons.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}$ of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}$ of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}$ of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}$ of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}$ of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}$ of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}$ of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}$ of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the absolute value of rapidity of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the absolute value of rapidity of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the number of jets in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the number of jets in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the number of jets in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the number of jets in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{l \textrm{non-}Z}$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{l \textrm{non-}Z}$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta y (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta y (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{l \textrm{non-}Z}$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{l \textrm{non-}Z}$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta y (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta y (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the absolute value of rapidity of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the absolute value of rapidity of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{l \textrm{non-}Z}$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{l \textrm{non-}Z}$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta y (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta y (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the absolute value of rapidity of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the absolute value of rapidity of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{l \textrm{non-}Z}$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{l \textrm{non-}Z}$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta y (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta y (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|$ in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the absolute value of rapidity of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the absolute value of rapidity of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the number of jets in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the number of jets in the 3$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the number of jets in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the number of jets in the 4$\ell$ channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}$ of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}$ of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the absolute value of rapidity of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the absolute value of rapidity of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{l \textrm{non-}Z}$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{l \textrm{non-}Z}$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta y (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta y (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}$ of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}$ of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the absolute value of rapidity of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the absolute value of rapidity of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{l \textrm{non-}Z}$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{l \textrm{non-}Z}$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta y (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta y (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised parton-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}$ of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}$ of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the absolute value of rapidity of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the absolute value of rapidity of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{l \textrm{non-}Z}$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{l \textrm{non-}Z}$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta y (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta y (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the number of jets in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the number of jets in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the number of jets in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the absolute particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the number of jets in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}$ of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}$ of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the absolute value of rapidity of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the absolute value of rapidity of the $Z$ boson in the 3$\ell$+4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{l \textrm{non-}Z}$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{l \textrm{non-}Z}$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta y (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta y (Z, t_{\textrm{lep}})|/\pi$ in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the number of jets in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the number of jets in the 3$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta \phi (t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $p_{\textrm{T}}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the number of jets in the 4$\ell$ channel.

The total correlation matrix of the normalised particle-level differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the number of jets in the 4$\ell$ channel.

Nuclear modification factor of $\Upsilon(1\mathrm{S})$ as a function of the average number of participants $\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$ or as a function of the collision centrality.

Nuclear modification factor of $\Upsilon(2\mathrm{S})$ as a function of the average number of participants $\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$ or as a function of the collision centrality.

Ratio of $\Upsilon(2\mathrm{S})$ and $\Upsilon(1\mathrm{S})$ yields (cf. equation 2 in the article for the definition) as a function of the average number of participants $\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$ or as a function of the collision centrality. The global uncertainty is the quadratic sum of the branching ratio uncertainties.

Relative nuclear modification factor or double yield ratio between $\Upsilon(2\mathrm{S})$ and $\Upsilon(1\mathrm{S})$ as a function of the average number of participants $\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$ or as a function of the collision centrality. The global uncertainty corresponds to the systematic uncertainty on the cross-section ratio in proton–proton collisions.

Nuclear modification factor of $\Upsilon(1\mathrm{S})$ as a function of transverse momentum for the 0–90% centrality interval.

Nuclear modification factor of $\Upsilon(1\mathrm{S})$ as a function of rapidity for the 0–90% centrality interval.

Nuclear modification factor of $\Upsilon(2\mathrm{S})$ as a function of rapidity for the 0–90% centrality interval.