$p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|y^{t}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Fiducial phase-space cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$|y^{t}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$|y^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$|{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

${\chi}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$|y^{t}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$|y^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$|{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

${\chi}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covariance matrix for M4l

Covariance matrix for M4lvChannel

Covariance matrix for m12_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for m34_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for pt12_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for pt34_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for CTS12_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for CTS34_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for dYpairs_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for dPhiPairs_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for dPhiLeadLep_vs_M4l

Covariance matrix for M4lvPt4lbin

Covariance matrix for M4lvRapiditybin

EFT results (linear)

EFT results (full)

Transverse profile for 70 GeV < pT < 100 GeV.

Longitudinal profile for pT > 100 GeV.

Transverse profile for pT > 100 GeV.

Average longitudinal profile

Transverse profile for pT > 100 GeV.

Distribution of the four-lepton invariant mass in the four-lepton final state for the ggF-MVA-low category.

Distribution of the four-lepton invariant mass in the four-lepton final state for the VBF-MVA-enriched category.

Distribution of the transverse mass in the llvv final state for the ggF-enriched eevv category.

Distribution of the transverse mass in the llvv final state for the ggF-enriched mumuvv category.

Distribution of the transverse mass in the llvv final state for the VBF-enriched eevv category.

Distribution of the transverse mass in the llvv final state for the VBF-enriched mumuvv category.

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for the ggF production mode

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for the VBF production mode

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the ggF production mode times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for an additional heavy scalar assuming a width of 1% of its mass

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the ggF production mode times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for an additional heavy scalar assuming a width of 5% of its mass

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the ggF production mode times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for an additional heavy scalar assuming a width of 10% of its mass

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the ggF production mode times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for an additional heavy scalar assuming a width of 15% of its mass

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for a KK graviton produced with k/M_{PI} = 1

The \(m_{bb}\) distributions in the MediumBDT categories, overlaid with contributions from the \(H\gamma jj\) signal as well as the resonant \(Z\gamma jj\) and non-resonant \(b\bar{b} \gamma jj\) background fits. The combined \(\chi^2\) per degree of freedom is \(45.2/45\). The bottom panel in each plot presents the significance of the Higgs boson signal relative to the non-resonant \(b\bar{b} \gamma jj\) background in each bin.

The \(m_{bb}\) distributions in the MediumBDT categories, overlaid with contributions from the \(H\gamma jj\) signal as well as the resonant \(Z\gamma jj\) and non-resonant \(b\bar{b} \gamma jj\) background fits. The combined \(\chi^2\) per degree of freedom is \(45.2/45\). The bottom panel in each plot presents the significance of the Higgs boson signal relative to the non-resonant \(b\bar{b} \gamma jj\) background in each bin.

Comparisons of data and simulated event distributions of the BDT input variables \(\Delta R (b1, \gamma)\) in the two \(m_{bb}\) sidebands after kinematic reweighting of the non-resonant \(b\bar{b}\gamma jj\) background. The data are shown as black points, and the background contributions are stacked in coloured histograms. The Higgs boson signal contribution is scaled up and represented by the dashed red line. The bottom panel in each plot shows the ratio between the data and the SM prediction, where the uncertainty band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty only.

Comparisons of data and simulated event distributions of the BDT input variables \(m_{jj}\) in the two \(m_{bb}\) sidebands after kinematic reweighting of the non-resonant \(b\bar{b}\gamma jj\) background. The data are shown as black points, and the background contributions are stacked in coloured histograms. The Higgs boson signal contribution is scaled up and represented by the dashed red line. The bottom panel in each plot shows the ratio between the data and the SM prediction, where the uncertainty band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty only.

Comparisons of data and simulated event distributions of the BDT input variables \(\Delta R (b2, \gamma)\) in the two \(m_{bb}\) sidebands after kinematic reweighting of the non-resonant \(b\bar{b}\gamma jj\) background. The data are shown as black points, and the background contributions are stacked in coloured histograms. The Higgs boson signal contribution is scaled up and represented by the dashed red line. The bottom panel in each plot shows the ratio between the data and the SM prediction, where the uncertainty band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty only.

Comparisons of data and simulated event distributions of the BDT input variables \(\text{centrality}(\gamma, j1, j2)\) in the two \(m_{bb}\) sidebands after kinematic reweighting of the non-resonant \(b\bar{b}\gamma jj\) background. The data are shown as black points, and the background contributions are stacked in coloured histograms. The Higgs boson signal contribution is scaled up and represented by the dashed red line. The bottom panel in each plot shows the ratio between the data and the SM prediction, where the uncertainty band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty only.

Comparisons of data and simulated event distributions of the BDT input variables \(\Delta \phi(b\bar{b}, jj)\) in the two \(m_{bb}\) sidebands after kinematic reweighting of the non-resonant \(b\bar{b}\gamma jj\) background. The data are shown as black points, and the background contributions are stacked in coloured histograms. The Higgs boson signal contribution is scaled up and represented by the dashed red line. The bottom panel in each plot shows the ratio between the data and the SM prediction, where the uncertainty band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty only.

Comparisons of data and simulated event distributions of the BDT input variables \(p_{\mathrm{T}}^{jj}\) in the two \(m_{bb}\) sidebands after kinematic reweighting of the non-resonant \(b\bar{b}\gamma jj\) background. The data are shown as black points, and the background contributions are stacked in coloured histograms. The Higgs boson signal contribution is scaled up and represented by the dashed red line. The bottom panel in each plot shows the ratio between the data and the SM prediction, where the uncertainty band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty only.

Comparisons of data and simulated event distributions of the BDT input variables \(\cos \theta\) in the two \(m_{bb}\) sidebands after kinematic reweighting of the non-resonant \(b\bar{b}\gamma jj\) background. The data are shown as black points, and the background contributions are stacked in coloured histograms. The Higgs boson signal contribution is scaled up and represented by the dashed red line. The bottom panel in each plot shows the ratio between the data and the SM prediction, where the uncertainty band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty only.

Comparisons of data and simulated event distributions of the BDT input variables \(\Delta R(b1,j1)\) in the two \(m_{bb}\) sidebands after kinematic reweighting of the non-resonant \(b\bar{b}\gamma jj\) background. The data are shown as black points, and the background contributions are stacked in coloured histograms. The Higgs boson signal contribution is scaled up and represented by the dashed red line. The bottom panel in each plot shows the ratio between the data and the SM prediction, where the uncertainty band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty only.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post-fit $m_\text{T}(\gamma, E_\text{T}^\text{miss})$ distribution in the inclusive signal region for the dark-photon search with the 125 GeV mass $\mathcal{B}(H \to \gamma \gamma_\text{d})$ signal normalization set to zero. A $H \to \gamma \gamma_\text{d}$ decay signal is shown for two different mass hypotheses, 125 GeV and 500 GeV, and scaled to a $\mathcal{B}(H \to \gamma \gamma_\text{d})$ of 2% and 1%, respectively. Events with $m_\text{T}(\gamma, E_\text{T}^\text{miss})$ larger than the rightmost bin boundary are added to that bin.

The 95% CL upper limit on the Higgs boson production cross-section times branching ratio to $\gamma \gamma_\text{d}$ is shown for different VBF-produced scalar-mediator-mass hypotheses in the NWA. The theoretically predicted cross-section of a Higgs boson produced via VBF and with the $\mathcal{B}(H \to \gamma \gamma_\text{d}) =$ 5% is superimposed on the $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ NNLO QCD + NLO EW uncertainty band of the expected production cross-section limit.

Post-fit $m_\text{jj}$ distribution in the inclusive signal region. The Higgs boson invisible decay signal is scaled to a $\mathcal{B}_\text{inv}$ of 37%. Events with $m_\text{jj}$ larger than the rightmost bin boundary are added to that bin.

Post-fit $m_\text{jj}$ distribution in the one-lepton control region $W_{\ell \nu}^\gamma$ CR. Events with $m_\text{jj}$ larger than the rightmost bin boundary are added to that bin.

Post-fit $m_\text{T}$ distribution in the one lepton control region. Events with $m_\text{T}$ larger than the rightmost bin boundary are added to that bin.

Post-fit photon centrality distribution in the zero lepton signal plus control region with the $\mathcal{B}_\text{inv}$ signal normalization set to zero in the fit.

Post-fit photon $E_\text{T}$ distribution in the zero lepton signal region with the $\mathcal{B}_\text{inv}$ signal normalization set to zero in the fit.

Post-fit photon centrality distribution in the zero lepton signal plus control region resulting from the fit to the $m_\text{jj}$ distribution for EW $Z \gamma + \text{jets}$. The post-fit uncertainties include statistical, experimental, and theory contributions.

Post-fit photon $E_\text{T}$ distribution in the zero lepton signal region resulting from the fit to the $m_\text{jj}$ distribution for EW $Z \gamma + \text{jets}$. The post-fit uncertainties include statistical, experimental, and theory contributions.

Post-fit DNN output score distribution in the one lepton control region.

Yields for the EW $Z \gamma + \text{jets}$ process are shown after each selection along with relative and absolute signal acceptance efficiencies.

Yields for the 125 GeV Higgs boson with $\mathcal{B}_\text{inv.} =$ 1 signal produced by the vector boson fusion process in association with a final state photon are shown after each selection along with relative and absolute signal acceptance efficiencies.

Yields for the 125 GeV Higgs boson with $\mathcal{B}(H \to \gamma \gamma_\text{d}) =$ 1 signal produced by the vector boson fusion process are shown after each selection along with relative and absolute signal acceptance efficiencies.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$ and SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$ and SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$ and SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR0$_{\mathrm{breq}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR1$_{\mathrm{breq}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR2$_{\mathrm{breq}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ bserved 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the wino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the wino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the slepton/sneutrino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the slepton/sneutrino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the gluino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the gluino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the higgsino GGM models. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Best expected SR for the wino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the wino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the slepton/sneutrino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the slepton/sneutrino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the gluino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the gluino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the higgsino GGM models. A value of 6 corresponds to SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 7 corresponds to SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 8 corresponds to SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}_{\mathrm{bveto}}$, and 9 corresponds to SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}_{\mathrm{bveto}}$.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR5L. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the taus leptons in distribution in SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light taus in distribution in SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with four light leptons and a Z veto. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with four light leptons and one Z candidate. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with four light leptons and two Z candidates. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with exactly five light leptons. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with three light leptons and one tau and a Z veto. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with three light leptons and one tau and one Z candidate. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with two light leptons and two taus and a Z veto. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with two light leptons and two taus and one Z candidate. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

Cutflow event yields in regions SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, SR0$_{\mathrm{breq}}$, and SR5L for RPV models with the $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ coupling. All yields correspond to weighted events, so that effects from lepton reconstruction efficiencies, trigger corrections, pileup reweighting, etc., are included. They are normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data sample, $\int L dt = 139\,\mbox{fb\(^{-1}\)}$. The preliminary event reduction is a centralized stage where at least two electrons/muons with uncalibrated $p_{\mathrm{T}} >$ 9 GeV are required.

Cutflow event yields in regions SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and SR1$_{\mathrm{breq}}$ for RPV models with the $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ coupling. All yields correspond to weighted events, so that effects from lepton reconstruction efficiencies, trigger corrections, pileup reweighting, etc., are included. They are normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data sample, $\int L dt = 139\,\mbox{fb\(^{-1}\)}$. The preliminary event reduction is a centralized stage where at least two electrons/muons with uncalibrated $p_{\mathrm{T}} >$ 9 GeV are required.

Cutflow event yields in regions SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and SR2$_{\mathrm{breq}}$ for RPV models with the $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ coupling. All yields correspond to weighted events, so that effects from lepton reconstruction efficiencies, trigger corrections, pileup reweighting, etc., are included. They are normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data sample, $\int L dt = 139\,\mbox{fb\(^{-1}\)}$. The preliminary event reduction is a centralized stage where at least two electrons/muons with uncalibrated $p_{\mathrm{T}} >$ 9 GeV are required.

Cutflow event yields in regions SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}$, SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}$, SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and SR5L the higgsino GGM RPC model with BR($\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1 \rightarrow Z \tilde{G}$) = 50% and higgsino masses of 200 GeV, or BR($\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1 \rightarrow Z \tilde{G}$) = 100% and higgsino masses of 300 GeV. All yields correspond to weighted events, so that effects from lepton reconstruction efficiencies, trigger corrections, pileup reweighting, etc., are included. They are normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data sample, $\int L dt = 139\,\mbox{fb\(^{-1}\)}$. The generator filter is a selection of $\geq$4e/$\mu$/$\tau_{\mathrm{had-vis}}$ leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}(e,\mu)>4$GeV, $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\tau_{\mathrm{had-vis}})>15$GeV and $|\eta|<2.8$ and is applied during the MC generation of the simulated events. The preliminary event reduction is a centralized stage where at least two electrons/muons with uncalibrated $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 9$ GeV are required.

Distribution of the missing transverse energy in CRTop. The Z+HF and $t\bar{t}$ scale factors, described in the text, have been applied to the simulated samples. The distribution labeled "Signal" is for the model with ($m_a$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}$) = (45 GeV, 10 GeV, 80 GeV).

Distribution of the dijet invariant mass in the signal region, shown together with the parameterized background model (labelled "Bkg Model"). For reference, the MC prediction for the SM background is also shown (labelled "SM MC"). The Z+HF and $t\bar{t}$ scale factors, described in the text, have been applied to the simulated samples. The signal region is defined to have dijet invariant mass > 20 GeV. The distribution labeled "Signal" is for the model with ($m_a$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}$) = (45 GeV, 10 GeV, 80 GeV).

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 10$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 65$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 10$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 80$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu\; \mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 10$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 95$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu\; \mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 10$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 110$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu\; \mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 20$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 80$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the $pp \rightarrow ZH$ cross section times the branching ratio for $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ (where $\ell = e, \mu \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau$) and $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 30$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 80$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain after the decay $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ are set to 100%.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching ratio $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 10$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 65$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. The SM $ZH$ cross section is assumed.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching ratio $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 10$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 80$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. The SM $ZH$ cross section is assumed.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching ratio $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 10$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 95$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. The SM $ZH$ cross section is assumed.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching ratio $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 10$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 110$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. The SM $ZH$ cross section is assumed.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching ratio $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 20$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 80$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. The SM $ZH$ cross section is assumed.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching ratio $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ as a function of $m_{a}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} = 30$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}} = 80$ GeV in the NMSSM scenario described in the text. The SM $ZH$ cross section is assumed.

Unweighted and weighted number of events after each stage of selection for the NMSSM scenario with $pp \rightarrow ZH$, $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$, $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ where $(m_{a}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}}) = (45,10,80)$ GeV and the Z boson decaying to $e^{+}e^{-}, \;\mu^{+}\mu^{-} \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain are set to 100%. The weighted number of events corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $139 \;\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$. The "skimming selection" required either a single electron or muon with $p_{T} > 100\;$ GeV or a pair of electrons or muons each with $p_{T} > 20\;$ GeV. The preselection requirements include the trigger, absence of a bad jet or bad muon, and two leptons, where a lepton is either an electron or a muon.

Acceptance and efficiency of this analysis for the signal models considered in this paper. The signal is an NMSSM scenario with $pp \rightarrow ZH$, $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$, $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ where the values of $(m_{a}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}})$ are varied. The Z boson decays to $e^{+}e^{-}, \mu^{+}\mu^{-} \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain are set to 100%. The product of acceptance times efficiency is defined by the fraction of simulated events that pass all the selection criteria of this analysis. The acceptance is defined by the fraction of simulated events that pass all the selection criteria as applied to Monte Carlo truth-level quantities. The efficiency is then defined as the acceptance times efficiency, divided by the acceptance.

Acceptance and efficiency of this analysis for the signal models considered in this paper. The signal is an NMSSM scenario with $pp \rightarrow ZH$, $Z \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$, $H \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow a \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ where the values of $(m_{a}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}})$ are varied. The Z boson decays to $e^{+}e^{-}, \mu^{+}\mu^{-} \;\mathrm{or}\; \tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. All branching ratios in the Higgs boson decay chain are set to 100%. The product of acceptance times efficiency is defined by the fraction of simulated events that pass all the selection criteria of this analysis. The acceptance is defined by the fraction of simulated events that pass all the selection criteria as applied to Monte Carlo truth-level quantities. The efficiency is then defined as the acceptance times efficiency, divided by the acceptance.