Expected and observed yields from the standard model processeses in the WW signal region. The combination of the statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown. The predicted yields are shown with their best-fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit.

Expected and observed yields from the standard model processeses in the WW signal region. The combination of the statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown. The predicted yields are shown with their best-fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit.

Expected and observed yields from the standard model processeses in the WW signal region. The combination of the statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown. The predicted yields are shown with their best-fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit.

Expected and observed yields from the standard model processeses in the WZ signal region. The combination of the statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown. The predicted yields are shown with their best-fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit.

Expected and observed yields from the standard model processeses in the WZ signal region. The combination of the statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown. The predicted yields are shown with their best-fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit.

Expected and observed yields from the standard model processeses in the WZ signal region. The combination of the statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown. The predicted yields are shown with their best-fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit.

The measured inclusive fiducial cross section measurements. The WW fiducial region is defined by requiring two same-sign leptons with $p_{T}>20$, $|\eta|<2.5$, and $m_{ll}>20$, and two jets with $m_{jj}>500$ and $|\Delta \eta_{jj}|>2.5$. The jets at generator level are clustered from stable particles, excluding neutrinos, using the anti-kt clustering algorithm with R = 0.4, and are required to have $p_{T}>50$ and $|\eta|<4.7$. The jets within $\Delta R<0.4$ of the selected charged leptons are not included. The WZ fiducial region is defined by requiring three leptons with $p_{T}>20$, $|\eta|<2.5$, a pair of opposite charge same-flavor lepton pair with $|m_{ll}-m_{Z}|<15$, and two jets with $m_{jj}>500$ and $|\Delta \eta_{jj}|>2.5$.

The measured inclusive fiducial cross section measurements. The WW fiducial region is defined by requiring two same-sign leptons with $p_{T}>20$, $|\eta|<2.5$, and $m_{ll}>20$, and two jets with $m_{jj}>500$ and $|\Delta \eta_{jj}|>2.5$. The jets at generator level are clustered from stable particles, excluding neutrinos, using the anti-kt clustering algorithm with R = 0.4, and are required to have $p_{T}>50$ and $|\eta|<4.7$. The jets within $\Delta R<0.4$ of the selected charged leptons are not included. The WZ fiducial region is defined by requiring three leptons with $p_{T}>20$, $|\eta|<2.5$, a pair of opposite charge same-flavor lepton pair with $|m_{ll}-m_{Z}|<15$, and two jets with $m_{jj}>500$ and $|\Delta \eta_{jj}|>2.5$.

The measured inclusive fiducial cross section measurements. The WW fiducial region is defined by requiring two same-sign leptons with $p_{T}>20$, $|\eta|<2.5$, and $m_{ll}>20$, and two jets with $m_{jj}>500$ and $|\Delta \eta_{jj}|>2.5$. The jets at generator level are clustered from stable particles, excluding neutrinos, using the anti-kt clustering algorithm with R = 0.4, and are required to have $p_{T}>50$ and $|\eta|<4.7$. The jets within $\Delta R<0.4$ of the selected charged leptons are not included. The WZ fiducial region is defined by requiring three leptons with $p_{T}>20$, $|\eta|<2.5$, a pair of opposite charge same-flavor lepton pair with $|m_{ll}-m_{Z}|<15$, and two jets with $m_{jj}>500$ and $|\Delta \eta_{jj}|>2.5$.

Distributions of $m_{jj}$ in the WW signal region.

Distributions of $m_{jj}$ in the WW signal region.

Distributions of $m_{jj}$ in the WW signal region.

Distributions of $m_{ll}$ in the WW signal region.

Distributions of $m_{ll}$ in the WW signal region.

Distributions of $m_{ll}$ in the WW signal region.

Distributions of $m_{jj}$ in the WZ signal region.

Distributions of $m_{jj}$ in the WZ signal region.

Distributions of $m_{jj}$ in the WZ signal region.

Distributions of BDT score in the WZ signal region.

Distributions of BDT score in the WZ signal region.

Distributions of BDT score in the WZ signal region.

Absolute WW cross section in $m_{jj}$ bins.

Absolute WW cross section in $m_{jj}$ bins.

Absolute WW cross section in $m_{jj}$ bins.

Normalized WW cross section in $m_{jj}$ bins.

Normalized WW cross section in $m_{jj}$ bins.

Normalized WW cross section in $m_{jj}$ bins.

Absolute WW cross section in $m_{ll}$ bins.

Absolute WW cross section in $m_{ll}$ bins.

Absolute WW cross section in $m_{ll}$ bins.

Normalized WW cross section in $m_{ll}$ bins.

Normalized WW cross section in $m_{ll}$ bins.

Normalized WW cross section in $m_{ll}$ bins.

Absolute WW cross section in $p_{T}^{l max}$ bins.

Absolute WW cross section in $p_{T}^{l max}$ bins.

Absolute WW cross section in $p_{T}^{l max}$ bins.

Normalized WW cross section in $p_{T}^{l max}$ bins.

Normalized WW cross section in $p_{T}^{l max}$ bins.

Normalized WW cross section in $p_{T}^{l max}$ bins.

Absolute WZ cross section in $m_{jj}$ bins.

Absolute WZ cross section in $m_{jj}$ bins.

Absolute WZ cross section in $m_{jj}$ bins.

Normalized WZ cross section in $m_{jj}$ bins.

Normalized WZ cross section in $m_{jj}$ bins.

Normalized WZ cross section in $m_{jj}$ bins.

Distributions of $m_{T}^{WW}$ in the WW signal region.

Distributions of $m_{T}^{WW}$ in the WW signal region.

Distributions of $m_{T}^{WW}$ in the WW signal region.

Distributions of $m_{T}^{WZ}$ in the WZ signal region.

Distributions of $m_{T}^{WZ}$ in the WZ signal region.

Distributions of $m_{T}^{WZ}$ in the WZ signal region.

Observed and expected lower and upper 95\% confidence level limits in TeV$^{-4}$ on the parameters of the quartic, obtained without using any unitarization procedure.

Observed and expected lower and upper 95\% confidence level limits in TeV$^{-4}$ on the parameters of the quartic, obtained without using any unitarization procedure.

Observed and expected lower and upper 95\% confidence level limits in TeV$^{-4}$ on the parameters of the quartic, obtained without using any unitarization procedure.

Observed and expected lower and upper 95\% confidence level limits in TeV$^{-4}$ on the parameters of the quartic by cutting the EFT expansion at the unitarity limit.

Observed and expected lower and upper 95\% confidence level limits in TeV$^{-4}$ on the parameters of the quartic by cutting the EFT expansion at the unitarity limit.

Observed and expected lower and upper 95\% confidence level limits in TeV$^{-4}$ on the parameters of the quartic by cutting the EFT expansion at the unitarity limit.

Selection acceptance times efficiency for the 1 lepton signal events from MC simulations as a function of the resonance mass for VBF production.

Selection acceptance times efficiency for the 2 leptons signal events from MC simulations as a function of the resonance mass for ggF/DY production.

Selection acceptance times efficiency for the 2 leptons signal events from MC simulations as a function of the resonance mass for VBF production.

The fractions of signal events passing the VBF requirement on the RNN score as functions of the resonance mass for both VBF and ggF production. Information on the RNN model, such as the architecture, network weights and features scaling files are provided as additional resources.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the ggF production cross section of Radions in their $WW+ZZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the VBF production cross section of Radions in their $WW+ZZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the DY production cross section of HVT $W'$ in their $WZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the VBF production cross section of HVT $W'$ in their $WZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the DY production cross section of HVT $Z'$ in their $WW$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the VBF production cross section of HVT $Z'$ in their $WW$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the ggF production cross section of Gravitons in their $WW+ZZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the VBF production cross section of Gravitons in their $WW+ZZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the ggF production cross section of Radions in their $WW$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the VBF production cross section of Radions in their $WW$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the ggF production cross section of Radions in their $ZZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the VBF production cross section of Radions in their $ZZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the ggF production cross section of Gravitons in their $WW$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the VBF production cross section of Gravitons in their $WW$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the ggF production cross section of Gravitons in their $ZZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the VBF production cross section of Gravitons in their $ZZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contour are excluded.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contour are excluded.

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.

Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.

Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.

Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.

Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.

The distributions of $S$ in SRA-TW. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $S$ in SRA-TW. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $\it{m}^{\mathrm{R=1.2}}_{1}$ in SRB-TT. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $\it{m}^{\mathrm{R=1.2}}_{1}$ in SRB-TT. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of R$_{ISR}$ in SRC signal regions before R$_{ISR}$ cuts are applied. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of R$_{ISR}$ in SRC signal regions before R$_{ISR}$ cuts are applied. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD0. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD0. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD1. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD1. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD2. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD2. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TT. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TT. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TW. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TW. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-T0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-T0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (700,400)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in signal regions SRB-TT, SRB-TW and SRB-T0. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 60000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (700,400)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in signal regions SRB-TT, SRB-TW and SRB-T0. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 60000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (500,327)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in regions SRC-1, SRC-2, SRC-3, SRC-4 and SRC-5. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 150000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.384 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (500,327)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in regions SRC-1, SRC-2, SRC-3, SRC-4 and SRC-5. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 150000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.384 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD1. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD1. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD2. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD2. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Signal acceptance in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal acceptance in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal acceptance in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal acceptance in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal acceptance in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal acceptance in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal acceptance in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Mean transverse momentum of inclusive J/psi as a function of the relative charged-particle pseudorapidity density at backward rapidity -4.46 < y_cms < -2.96 (Pb-going direction).

Relative mean transverse momentum of inclusive J/psi as a function of the relative charged-particle pseudorapidity density at forward rapidity 2.03 < y_cms < 3.53 (p-going direction).

Mean transverse momentum of inclusive J/psi as a function of the relative charged-particle pseudorapidity density at backward rapidity -4.46 < y_cms < -2.96 (Pb-going direction).

The $m_{W}^{T}$ distribution from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 2j1t (left) and 3j1t (right) categories for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 2j1t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and b jet momenta system (right), shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distributionfrom the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 2j1t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and b jet momenta system (right), shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distributionfrom the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 2j1t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and b jet momenta system (right), shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distributionfrom the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 2j1t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and b jet momenta system (right), shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distributionfrom the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j1t category: the $p_{T}^{miss}$ in the transverse plane (left) and the value of the MVA b tagger discriminator when applied to the extra jet (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points andthe hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j1t category: the $p_{T}^{miss}$ in the transverse plane (left) and the value of the MVA b tagger discriminator when applied to the extra jet (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points andthe hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j1t category: the $p_{T}^{miss}$ in the transverse plane (left) and the value of the MVA b tagger discriminator when applied to the extra jet (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points andthe hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j1t category: the $p_{T}^{miss}$ in the transverse plane (left) and the value of the MVA b tagger discriminator when applied to the extra jet (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points andthe hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j2t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and non-b-tagged jet system (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j2t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and non-b-tagged jet system (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j2t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and non-b-tagged jet system (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j2t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and non-b-tagged jet system (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Values of the third-row elements of the CKM matrix inferred from low-energy measurements with the respective values of the top quark decay branching fractions. The q in bs{V_{tq}} and \mathcal{B}(t o Wq) in the first column refers to b, s, and d quarks, according to the quark label shown in the header row.

For each of the production and decay vertices, the cross section times branching fraction for the corresponding signal process from simulation. The uncertainties shown includethose from the factorisation and renormalisation scales, the PDFs, and any experimental uncer-tainties, where appropriate.

The sources and relative values in percent of the systematic uncertainty in the measurement of the STb,b cross section. The uncertainties are broken up into profiled and nonprofiled sources.

The signal strengths obtained under SM assumptions.

Results obtained under SM assumptions.

Results obtained under first BSM scenario.

Results obtained under second BSM scenario.

The expected exclusion limit contours at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

The +1 $\sigma$ expected exclusion limit contours at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

The -1 $\sigma$ expected exclusion limit contours at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

The +1 $\sigma$ observed exclusion limit contours at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

The -1 $\sigma$ observed exclusion limit contours at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

The observed and expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

Expected and observed 95% CL exclusion upper limits on the higgsino production ($\tilde{\chi}\tilde{\chi} \equiv \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$) cross-section in the signal of $h \tilde{G} h \tilde{G} $ as a function of the higgsino mass.

The distribution of $S_{E_\mathrm{T}^{\mathrm{miss}}}$ after the selection of diphoton candidates with $120~GeV < m_{\gamma\gamma} < 130~GeV$. Expected distributions are shown for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2} \to W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} $ signal with $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})=200~GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=0.5~GeV$, and the $h\tilde{G} h\tilde{G}$ signal with $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=150~GeV$ and $m(\tilde{G})=1~MeV$. These overlaid signal points are representative of the model kinematics. The sum in quadrature of the MC statistical and experimental systematic uncertainties in the total background is shown as the hatched bands, while the theoretical uncertainties in the background normalisation are not included. The $t\bar{t}\gamma$ and $t\bar{t}\gamma\gamma$ processes have a negligible contribution and are not represented. Overflow events are included in the rightmost bin. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the background.

Acceptance and efficiency for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signal in each category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the $h \tilde{G} h \tilde{G}$ signal in each category.

Cut flow for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signal sample at $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})=200~GeV$, $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=0.5~GeV$, with 260000 entries.

Cut flow for the $h \tilde{G} h \tilde{G}$ signal sample at $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=150~GeV$, $m(\tilde{G})=1~MeV$, with 50000 entries.

Event yields in the range 120 <$m\gamma\gamma$< 130 GeV for data, signal models, the SM Higgs boson background and non-resonant background in each analysis category after the fit.

Event yields in the range 120 <$m\gamma\gamma$< 130 GeV for data, signal models, the SM Higgs boson background and non-resonant background in each analysis category before the fit.

Acceptance for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the leptonic channel.

Efficiency for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the leptonic channel.

Acceptance for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the hadronic channel.

Efficiency for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the hadronic channel.

Acceptance for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the rest channel.

Efficiency for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the rest channel.

Acceptance for the $h \tilde{G} h \tilde{G}$ signals in the each channel.

Efficiency for the $h \tilde{G} h \tilde{G}$ signals in the each channel.

Measured and predicted fiducial cross-sections in both the lllljj and ll$\nu\nu$jj channels for the inclusive ZZjj processes. Uncertainties due to different sources are presented.

Measured and predicted fiducial cross-sections in both the lllljj and ll$\nu\nu$jj channels for the inclusive ZZjj processes. Uncertainties due to different sources are presented.

Observed and expected multivariate discriminant distribution in the $\ell\ell\ell\ell jj$ QCD CR.

Observed and expected multivariate discriminant distribution in the $\ell\ell\ell\ell jj$ QCD CR.

Observed and expected multivariate discriminant distribution in the $\ell\ell\ell\ell jj$ SR.

Observed and expected multivariate discriminant distribution in the $\ell\ell\ell\ell jj$ SR.

Observed and expected multivariate discriminant distribution in the $\ell\ell\nu\nu jj$ SR.

Observed and expected multivariate discriminant distribution in the $\ell\ell\nu\nu jj$ SR.

Source radius $r_{core}$ as a function of〈$m_{T}$〉for the assumption of a Gaussian source with added resonances. The blue crosses result from fitting the p–p correlation function with the strong Argonnev18 potential. The green squared crosses (red triangular crosses) result from fitting the p–Λ correlation functions withthe strong χEFT LO (NLO) potential. Statistical (lines) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 3.3 ns and with a purely wino LSP. The branching fraction for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$ is set to 100%. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 2:1 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 33 ns and with a purely wino LSP. The branching fraction for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$ is set to 100%. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 2:1 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 33 ns and with a purely wino LSP. The branching fraction for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$ is set to 100%. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 2:1 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 333 ns and with a purely wino LSP. The branching fraction for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$ is set to 100%. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 2:1 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 333 ns and with a purely wino LSP. The branching fraction for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$ is set to 100%. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 2:1 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 0.3 ns and with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 0.3 ns and with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 3.3 ns and with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 3.3 ns and with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 33 ns and with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 33 ns and with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 333 ns and with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass, for a chargino lifetime of 333 ns and with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered. The dashed line indicates the theoretical prediction.

The expected and observed constraints on chargino lifetime and mass for a purely wino LSP in the context of AMSB, where the chargino lifetime is explicitly varied. The chargino branching fraction is set to 100% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The region to the left of the curve is excluded at 95% CL. The prediction from PLB 721 (2013) 252 is indicated in the dashed line.

The expected and observed constraints on chargino lifetime and mass for a purely wino LSP in the context of AMSB, where the chargino lifetime is explicitly varied. The chargino branching fraction is set to 100% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The region to the left of the curve is excluded at 95% CL. The prediction from PLB 721 (2013) 252 is indicated in the dashed line.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass and mean proper lifetime, with a purely wino LSP. The branching fraction for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$ is set to 100%. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 2:1 ratio for all chargino masses considered.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass and mean proper lifetime, with a purely wino LSP. The branching fraction for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \pi^{\pm}$ is set to 100%. Shown are the full Run 2 results, derived from the results of the search in the 2017 and 2018 data sets combined with those of the previous CMS result obtained in the 2015 and 2016 data sets. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 2:1 ratio for all chargino masses considered.

The expected and observed constraints on chargino lifetime and mass for a purely higgsino LSP in the context of AMSB, where the chargino lifetime is explicitly varied. The chargino branching fraction is set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The region to the left of the curve is excluded at 95% CL. The prediction from Phys. Lett. B 781 (2018) 306 is indicated in the dashed line.

The expected and observed constraints on chargino lifetime and mass for a purely higgsino LSP in the context of AMSB, where the chargino lifetime is explicitly varied. The chargino branching fraction is set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The region to the left of the curve is excluded at 95% CL. The prediction from Phys. Lett. B 781 (2018) 306 is indicated in the dashed line.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass and mean proper lifetime, with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for direct production of charginos as a function of chargino mass and mean proper lifetime, with a purely higgsino LSP. The branching fractions are set to 95.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \pi^{\pm}$, 3% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} e\nu$, and 1.5% for $\widetilde{\chi}^{-}_{1} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \mu\nu$, with equal branching fractions and production cross sections between $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. The cross section includes both $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\widetilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$ production in roughly a 7:2 ratio for all chargino masses considered.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018A data-taking period, corresponding to $21.1\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018A data-taking period, corresponding to $21.1\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018A data-taking period, corresponding to $21.1\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018A data-taking period, corresponding to $21.1\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018A data-taking period, corresponding to $21.1\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018A data-taking period, corresponding to $21.1\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018A data-taking period, corresponding to $21.1\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018A data-taking period, corresponding to $21.1\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018B data-taking period, corresponding to $38.6\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018B data-taking period, corresponding to $38.6\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018B data-taking period, corresponding to $38.6\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018B data-taking period, corresponding to $38.6\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $700\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018B data-taking period, corresponding to $38.6\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018B data-taking period, corresponding to $38.6\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018B data-taking period, corresponding to $38.6\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Predicted signal yields for the 2018B data-taking period, corresponding to $38.6\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement for three chargino lifetime hypotheses ($\tau = 0.3$, $3.3$, and $33\,\text{ns}{}$) with a chargino mass of $300\,\text{GeV}{}$ in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. Excepting the final three, the requirements listed are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. In the case of the final three requirements on the number of tracker layers with measurement, these are exclusive signal category selections where only one is applied for each category. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2017 data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2017 data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2017 data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2017 data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2017 data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2017 data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2017 data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2017 data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018A data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018A data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018A data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018A data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018A data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018A data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018A data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018A data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018B data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018B data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018B data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely wino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018B data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018B data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^\mp_{1}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018B data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018B data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Signal acceptance times efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for each of the generated chargino masses and lifetimes for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events, in the case of a purely higgsino neutralino LSP. The denominator for the acceptance is the total number of $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_{1} \widetilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}$ events generated, while the numerator is the number of those events that are selected by the signal selection after being processed with the same reconstruction software used on the data. These $A\times\epsilon$ values correspond to the conditions simulated for the 2018B data-taking period. The uncertainties are only the statistical uncertainties resulting from the sizes of the generated samples.

Summary of the estimated backgrounds and the observation. The first and second uncertainties shown are the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

Summary of the estimated backgrounds and the observation. The first and second uncertainties shown are the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.