Number of events selected in the 1$\ell$+1$\tau_{\mathrm{h}}$, 0$\ell$+2$\tau_{\mathrm{h}}$, 2$\ell$os+1$\tau_{\mathrm{h}}$, and 1$\ell$+2$\tau_{\mathrm{h}}$ analysis channels compared to the event yields expected from the $ tH$ and $ H$ signals and from background processes. The expected event yields are computed for the values of nuisance parameters and of the POI obtained from the ML fit. The best fit values of the POI amount to $\hat{r_{ttH}} = 0.92$ and $\hat{r_{tH}} = 5.7$. Quoted uncertainties represent the sum of statistical and systematic components.

Number of events selected in the 4$\ell$+0$\tau_{\mathrm{h}}$, 3$\ell$+1$\tau_{\mathrm{h}}$, and 2$\ell$+2$\tau_{\mathrm{h}}$ analysis channels compared to the event yields expected from the $ tH$ and $ H$ signals and from background processes. The expected event yields are computed for the values of nuisance parameters and of the POI obtained from the ML fit. The best fit values of the POI amount to $\hat{r_{ttH}} = 0.92$ and $\hat{r_{tH}} = 5.7$. Quoted uncertainties represent the sum of statistical and systematic components.

Dependence of the likelihood function L as a function of $\kappa_{\mathrm{t}}$ and $\kappa_{\mathrm{V}}$.

$-2\Delta log( L)$ as a function of the production rate of ttH and tH.

$-2\Delta log( L)$ as a function of the production rate of ttH and ttW.

$-2\Delta log( L)$ as a function of the production rate of ttH and ttZ.

$-2\Delta log( L)$ as a function of the production rate of ttW and ttZ.

Covariance matrix of the fitted parameters of interest.

Production rate of the ttH signal measured in each of the ten channels individually and for the combination of all channels

Production rate of the tH signal measured in each of the ten channels individually and for the combination of all channels

Probability for ttH signal events to pass the event selection in each of the analysis categories employed.

Observed metSig distributions in signal regions MB-GGd. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).

Observed $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distributions in signal regions MB-C. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).

Observed metSig distributions in signal regions MB-C. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).

Observed BDT-GGd1 score distributions in signal regions GGd1. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).

Observed BDT-GGo1 score distributions in signal regions GGo1. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd1

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd2

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd3

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd4

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo1

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo2

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo3

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo4

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-1600

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-2200

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-2800

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-1000

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-2200

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-3400

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 5j-1600

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-1000

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-2200

Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-3400

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd1. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd2. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd3. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd4. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo1. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo2. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo3. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo4. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-1600. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-2200. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-2800. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-1000. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-2200. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-3400. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 5j-1600. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-1000. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-2200. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-3400. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.

Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and first- and second-generation squarks assuming squark pair production and direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with a dark dashed curve, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.

Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and first- and second-generation squarks assuming squark pair production and direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curve where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.

Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and non degenerated squark pair production and direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with a dark dashed curve, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.

Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and non degenerated squark pair production and direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curve where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.

Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and the gluino for gluino pair production with direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with a dark dashed curve, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.

Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and the gluino for gluino pair production with direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curve where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.

Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and squarks. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.

Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and squarks. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.

Exclusion limits for squark pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the squark mass. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.

Exclusion limits for squark pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the squark mass. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.

Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and gluinos. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.

Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and gluinos. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curve where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.

Exclusion limits for gluino pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the gluino mass. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.

Exclusion limits for gluino pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the gluino mass. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.

Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 0 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.

Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 0 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.

Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 995 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.

Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 995 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.

Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 1495 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.

Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 1495 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.

The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for squark-pair production with direct decays.

The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for gluino-pair production with direct decays

The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for squark-pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino.

The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for squark-pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the squark mass.

The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for gluino-pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino.

The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for gluino-pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60~GeV and exclusio limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the gluino mass.

Cut-flow for model-independent search regions targeting squarks for SS direct model points. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cut-flow for model-independent search regions targeting gluinos for GG direct model points. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cut-flow for model-independent search regions targeting squarks and gluinos in models with one-step decay. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cut-flow for BDT search regions targeting gluinos in models with one-step decays. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cut-flow for BDT search regions targeting gluinos in models with direct decays. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.

The ratios (μ) of the 95% C.L. upper limits on the combined s→ W^±W^∓ and s→ ZZ cross section to simplified model expectations for the m_Z'=1 TeV scenario, for various m_s hypotheses. The observed limits (solid line) are consistent with the expectation under the SM-only hypothesis (dashed line) within uncertainties (filled band), except for a small excess for m_s=160 GeV, discussed in the text.

The ratios (μ) of the 95% C.L. upper limits on the combined s→ W^±W^∓ and s→ ZZ cross section to simplified model expectations for the m_Z'=1.7 TeV scenario, for various m_s hypotheses. The observed limits (solid line) are consistent with the expectation under the SM-only hypothesis (dashed line) within uncertainties (filled band), except for a small excess for m_s=160 GeV, discussed in the text.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m_Z'=0.5 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m_Z'=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m_Z'=1 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m_Z'=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m_Z'=1.7 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m_Z'=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

SM background post-fit yields stacked in each SR and CR category and E_T^miss bin and data overlaid with the maximum likelihood estimators set to the conditional values of the combined signal and control region fit. The hatched uncertainty band shown includes simulation statistics uncertainties, experimental systematic uncertainties, and V+jets theory modelling systematic uncertainties. Pre-fit uncertainties cover differences between the data and pre-fit background prediction.

Cumulative efficiencies for the merged category for signal samples with m_s=160 GeV (a), m_s=235 GeV (b) and m_s=310 GeV (c), each with m_Z'=1 TeV. The dark Higgs candidate selection includes stringent jet substructure requirements and typically at most one candidate is present in signal events. Here, Δ φ_{jets_1,2,3 E_T^miss} is the smallest azimuthal angle between the E_T^miss and any of the three highest-p_T (leading) small-R jets.

Cumulative efficiencies for the intermediate category for signal samples with m_s=160 GeV (a), m_s=235 GeV (b) and m_s=310 GeV (c), each with m_Z'=1 TeV. The TAR+Comb algorithm reconstructs the dark Higgs candidate from a TAR jet with m^TAR>60 GeV that is supplemented by up to two additional small-R jets within ΔR_cone=2.5 of the TAR jet. Here, Δ φ_{jets_1,2,3 E_T^miss} is the smallest azimuthal angle between the E_T^miss and any of the three highest-p_T (leading) small-R jets. For details see text.

The product of acceptance and efficiency (A × ϵ), defined as the number of signal events satisfying the full set of selection criteria in the merged or intermediate signal regions, divided by the total number of generated signal events, for the s(W^±W^∓) dark Higgs signal points with dark Higgs boson mass m_s and Z' boson mass m_Z'.

The product of acceptance and efficiency (A × ϵ), defined as the number of signal events satisfying the full set of selection criteria in the merged or intermediate signal regions, divided by the total number of generated signal events, for the s(ZZ) dark Higgs signal points with dark Higgs boson mass m_s and Z' boson mass m_Z'.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the VRSS for the $e\tau$ channel for events with 3-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $e\tau$ channel for events with 1-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $e\tau$ channel for events with 3-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $\mu\tau$ channel for events with 1-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $\mu\tau$ channel for events with 3-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

Observed and expected upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(Z\rightarrow\ell\tau)$ at 95% confidence level.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the leptoquark mass as a function of the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}$(LQ->$t\mu$).

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. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

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 contours are excluded. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

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. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.

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 contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.

Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.

Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.

Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

Expected background and observed number of events in different jet and $b$-tag multiplicity bins.

Cut flow for a model of top-squark pair production with the top squark decaying to a $b$-quark and a chargino. The chargino decays through the non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda^{''}_{323}$ via a virtual top squark to $bbs$ quark triplets ($m_{\tilde{t}}$ = 800 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}}$ = 750 GeV). The multijet trigger consists of four jets satisfying $p_{\text{T}}\geq(100)120$ GeV for the 2015-2016 (2017-2018) data period. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed. The numbers in $N_{\text{weighted}}$ are normalized by the integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of rapidity in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of rapidity in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $\Delta v_2$ as a function of rapidity in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Measured fiducial cross sections for the $\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{L}}\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{L}}$ and $\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{X}}\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes, and for the $\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{L}}\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{X}}$ and $\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes for the helicity eigenstates defined in the parton-parton center-of-mass frame. The combination of the statistical and systematic uncertainties is shown. $\mathcal{B}$ is the branching fraction for $\mathrm{W}\mathrm{W} \rightarrow \ell \nu \ell' \nu$. The 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 theoretical predictions including the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}\alpha^6)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^7)$ corrections to the \MGvATNLO LO cross sections, as described in arXiv:2009.09429, are also shown. The theoretical uncertainties include statistical, PDF, and LO scale uncertainties.