Differential fiducial cross section (without the acceptance correction) for the DY process measured in the muon channel, as a function of $p_{\textrm{T}}$ for $15<m_{\mu\mu}<60$ GeV. The quoted error is the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The global normalisation uncertainty of 3.5% is listed separately.

Differential fiducial cross section (without the acceptance correction) for the DY process measured in the muon channel, as a function of $p_{\textrm{T}}$ for $60<m_{\mu\mu}<120$ GeV. The quoted error is the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The global normalisation uncertainty of 3.5% is listed separately.

Differential fiducial cross section (without the acceptance correction) for the DY process measured in the muon channel, as a function of $\phi^*$ for $15<m_{\mu\mu}<60$ GeV. The quoted error is the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The global normalisation uncertainty of 3.5% is listed separately.

Differential fiducial cross section (without the acceptance correction) for the DY process measured in the muon channel, as a function of $\phi^*$ for $60<m_{\mu\mu}<120$ GeV. The quoted error is the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The global normalisation uncertainty of 3.5% is listed separately.

Integrated fiducial cross section for the DY process measured in the muon channel. The quoted error is the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The global normalisation uncertainty of 3.5% is listed separately.

Differential cross section for the DY process measured in the muon channel, as a function of dimuon invariant mass. The quoted error is the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The global normalisation uncertainty of 3.5% is listed separately.

Differential cross section for the DY process measured in the muon channel, as a function of rapidity in the centre-of-mass frame for $15<m_{\mu\mu}<60$ GeV. The quoted error is the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The global normalisation uncertainty of 3.5% is listed separately.

Differential cross section for the DY process measured in the muon channel, as a function of rapidity in the centre-of-mass frame for $60<m_{\mu\mu}<120$ GeV. The quoted error is the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The global normalisation uncertainty of 3.5% is listed separately.

Differential cross section for the DY process measured in the muon channel, as a function of $p_{\textrm{T}}$ for $15<m_{\mu\mu}<60$ GeV. The quoted error is the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The global normalisation uncertainty of 3.5% is listed separately.

Differential cross section for the DY process measured in the muon channel, as a function of $p_{\textrm{T}}$ for $60<m_{\mu\mu}<120$ GeV. The quoted error is the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The global normalisation uncertainty of 3.5% is listed separately.

Differential cross section for the DY process measured in the muon channel, as a function of $\phi^*$ for $15<m_{\mu\mu}<60$ GeV. The quoted error is the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The global normalisation uncertainty of 3.5% is listed separately.

Differential cross section for the DY process measured in the muon channel, as a function of $\phi^*$ for $60<m_{\mu\mu}<120$ GeV. The quoted error is the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The global normalisation uncertainty of 3.5% is listed separately.

Integrated cross section for the DY process measured in the muon channel. The quoted error is the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The global normalisation uncertainty of 3.5% is listed separately.

Forward-backward ratios for $15<m_{\mu\mu}<60$ GeV. Quoted uncertainties are the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Forward-backward ratios for $60<m_{\mu\mu}<120$ GeV. Quoted uncertainties are the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Correlation matrix for the systematic uncertainties, excluding integrated luminosity, as a function of dimuon invariant mass.

Correlation matrix for the systematic uncertainties, excluding integrated luminosity, as a function of rapidity in the centre-of-mass frame for $15<m_{\mu\mu}<60$ GeV.

Correlation matrix for the systematic uncertainties, excluding integrated luminosity, as a function of rapidity in the centre-of-mass frame for $60<m_{\mu\mu}<120$ GeV.

Correlation matrix for the systematic uncertainties, excluding integrated luminosity, as a function of $p_{\textrm{T}}$ for $15<m_{\mu\mu}<60$ GeV.

Correlation matrix for the systematic uncertainties, excluding integrated luminosity, as a function of $p_{\textrm{T}}$ for $60<m_{\mu\mu}<120$ GeV.

Correlation matrix for the systematic uncertainties, excluding integrated luminosity, as a function of $\phi^*$ for $15<m_{\mu\mu}<60$ GeV.

Correlation matrix for the systematic uncertainties, excluding integrated luminosity, as a function of $\phi^*$ for $60<m_{\mu\mu}<120$ GeV.

Correlation matrix for the systematic uncertainties, excluding integrated luminosity, as a function of rapidity in the centre-of-mass frame, putting together low and high masses. Each bin is labeled lm_i or hm_i, where lm stands for $15<m_{\mu\mu}<60$ GeV, hm stands for $60<m_{\mu\mu}<120$ GeV, and i is the corresponding bin number in rapidity in the centre-of-mass frame. The global normalisation uncertainty of 3.5% is not included. Data from Figure [3, 4, 4].

Correlation matrix for the systematic uncertainties, excluding integrated luminosity, as a function of $p_{\textrm{T}}$, putting together low and high masses. Each bin is labeled lm_i or hm_i, where lm stands for $15<m_{\mu\mu}<60$ GeV, hm stands for $60<m_{\mu\mu}<120$ GeV, and i is the corresponding bin number in $p_{\textrm{T}}$. The global normalisation uncertainty of 3.5% is not included. Data from Figure [3, 4, 4].

Correlation matrix for the systematic uncertainties, excluding integrated luminosity, as a function of $\phi^*$, putting together low and high masses. Each bin is labeled lm_i or hm_i, where lm stands for $15<m_{\mu\mu}<60$ GeV, hm stands for $60<m_{\mu\mu}<120$ GeV, and i is the corresponding bin number in $\phi^*$. The global normalisation uncertainty of 3.5% is not included. Data from Figure [3, 4, 4].

Spectra of jets with |eta jet| < 2.0 for R = 0.6, for pp collisions and different centrality classes of PbPb collisions.

Spectra of jets with |eta jet| < 2.0 for R = 0.8, for pp collisions and different centrality classes of PbPb collisions.

Spectra of jets with |eta jet| < 2.0 for R = 1.0, for pp collisions and different centrality classes of PbPb collisions.

The spectra ratio for jets from pp collisions with |eta jet| < 2.0 for R = 0.2–0.8 with respect to R = 1.0.

The RAA for jets with |eta jet| < 2.0 as a function of jet PT for R = 0.2 and various centrality classes.

The RAA for jets with |eta jet| < 2.0 as a function of jet PT for R = 0.3 and various centrality classes.

The RAA for jets with |eta jet| < 2.0 as a function of jet PT for R = 0.4 and various centrality classes.

The RAA for jets with |eta jet| < 2.0 as a function of jet PT for R = 0.6 and various centrality classes.

The RAA for jets with |eta jet| < 2.0 as a function of jet PT for R = 0.8 and various centrality classes.

The RAA for jets with |eta jet| < 2.0 as a function of jet PT for R = 1.0 and various centrality classes.

The RAA-ratio for jets with |eta jet| < 2.0 as a function of R for R = 0.3–1.0 with respect to R = 0.2, in various event centrality classes and jet PT = 200-250 GeV.

The RAA-ratio for jets with |eta jet| < 2.0 as a function of R for R = 0.3–1.0 with respect to R = 0.2, in various event centrality classes and jet PT = 250-300 GeV.

The RAA-ratio for jets with |eta jet| < 2.0 as a function of R for R = 0.3–1.0 with respect to R = 0.2, in various event centrality classes and jet PT = 300-400 GeV.

The RAA-ratio for jets with |eta jet| < 2.0 as a function of R for R = 0.3–1.0 with respect to R = 0.2, in various event centrality classes and jet PT = 400-500 GeV.

The RAA-ratio for jets with |eta jet| < 2.0 as a function of R for R = 0.3–1.0 with respect to R = 0.2, in various event centrality classes and jet PT = 500-1000 GeV.

The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the top control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.

The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.

The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the $Z\rightarrow ee$ control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.

The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the signal region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{A}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{P}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

A comparison of the inferred limits with the constraints from direct-detection experiments on the spin-dependent WIMP-neutron and WIMP-proton scattering cross section as a function of the WIMP mass, in the context of the simplified model with axial-vector couplings. Limits are shown at 90% CL.

Observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ up expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ down expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ up expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ down expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to c + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ up expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ down expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ up expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ down expected excluded regions at the 95% CL in the ($\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$)mass plane for the decay channel $\tilde{t}_1 \to b + ff^{'} + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Observed exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion plane at 95% CL as a function of sbottom and neutralino masses for the decay channel $\tilde{b}_1 \to b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ ($\mathcal{B}=100\%$)

Observed exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

Expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion region at 95$\%$ CL as a function of squark mass and the squark--neutralino massdifference for $\tilde{q} \to q + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{q}_\mathrm{L} + \tilde{q}_\mathrm{R}$with ($\tilde{u},\tilde{d},\tilde{c},\tilde{s}$).

Observed and expected exclusions at $95\%$ CL on the Horndeski dark-energy model for $m_{\phi}=0.1$ GeV and $c_{i\neq 2}=0$, $c_{2}=1$, expressed in terms of the visible cross section as a function of the suppression scale $M_{2}$.

$95\%$ CL observed and expected lower limits on the fundamental Planck scale in $4+n$ dimensions, $M_D$, as a function of the number of extra dimensions $n$, considering nominal LO signal cross sections.

Observed and expected 95$\%$ CL upper limits on the coupling $c_{\stackrel{\sim}{\smash{G}}}$ as a function of the effective scale $f_a$ for ALP mass of 1 MeV. The bands indicate the $\pm 1\sigma$ theory uncertainties in the observed limit and the $\pm 1\sigma$and $\pm 2\sigma$ ranges of the expected limit in the absence of a signal. The 95$\%$ CL limits are computed with no suppression of the events with $\hat{s} > f_a^2$.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ up observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{PDF+scale}}$ down observed exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

1 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ up expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

2 $\sigma$ down expected exclusion contour at 95% CL in the $m_{Z_{V}}-m_\chi$ parameter plane for the vector mediator model.

A comparison of the inferred limits with the constraints from direct-detection experiments on the spin-independent WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section as a function of the WIMP mass, in the context of the simplified model with vector couplings. Limits are shown at 90% CL.

Inferred 95% CL limits on the WIMP annihilation rate as a function of WIMP mass, for the pseudoscalar mediator model. The annihilation rate is defined as the product of cross section $\sigma$ and relative velocity $v_{rel}$, averaged over the DM velocity distribution ($\langle\sigma v_{rel}\rangle$). Both the $qq$ and $gg$ annihilation channels are considered in the calculation of the annihilation rate

95% CL upper limits on the cross-section $\sigma$ in the $m_{Z_A}-m_{\chi}$ parameter plane for the axial-vector mediator model.

95% CL upper limits on the cross-section $\sigma$ in the $m_{Z_P}-m_{\chi}$ parameter plane for the pseudo-scalar mediator model.

Contribution to the total SR background uncertainty in exclusive bins of the SR, as obtained from the CR-only fit. In the table, the contribution of each source of systematic is shown as the sum in quadrature of the individual contributions represented by the corresponding nuisance parameters.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM0.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM1.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM2.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM3.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM4.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM5.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM6.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM7.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM8.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM9.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM10.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM11.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM12.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM0.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM1.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM2.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM3.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM4.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM5.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM6.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM7.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM8.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM9.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM10.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM11.

Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM12.

Cutflow of several signal benchmarks. A cut on the truth $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ at 150 GeV is applied.

Cutflow of several signal benchmarks. A cut on the truth $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ at 350 GeV is applied.

Observed and expected limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^+}$ in the $M_h^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario. Limits are shown for $\tan\beta$ values in the range of 0.5-60 due to the availability of the model prediction. The bands surrounding the expected limits show the 68% and 95% confidence intervals. Uncertainties in the predicted $H^+$ cross-sections or branching ratios are not considered.

Observed and expected limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^+}$ in the $M_h^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario. Limits are shown for $\tan\beta$ values in the range of 0.5-60 due to the availability of the model prediction. The bands surrounding the expected limits show the 68% and 95% confidence intervals. Uncertainties in the predicted $H^+$ cross-sections or branching ratios are not considered.

Observed and expected limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^+}$ in the $M_h^{125}$(alignment) scenario. Limits are shown for $\tan\beta$ values in the range of 0.5-60 due to the availability of the model prediction. The bands surrounding the expected limits show the 68% and 95% confidence intervals. Uncertainties in the predicted $H^+$ cross-sections or branching ratios are not considered.

Observed and expected limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^+}$ in the $M_{h_1}^{125}$(CPV) scenario. Limits are shown for $\tan\beta$ values in the range of 0.5-60 due to the availability of the model prediction. The bands surrounding the expected limits show the 68% and 95% confidence intervals. Uncertainties in the predicted $H^+$ cross-sections or branching ratios are not considered.

Event yields of the SM background processes and the 800 GeV $H^{+}$ sample in the four analysis regions before the fit to the data. Uncertainties include both statistical and systematic uncertainties. The yields of the $H^{+}$ signal sample correspond to a cross-section times branching fraction of 10 pb.

Event acceptance for the different $H^+$ mass signal samples.

Three-jet events $\Delta R_{23}$ for hard radiation ($p_{\mathrm{T}3}/p_{\mathrm{T}2}$ > 0.6)

Three-jet events $p_{\mathrm{T}3}/p_{\mathrm{T}2}$ for small-angle radiation ($\Delta R_{23}$ < 1.0)

Three-jet events $p_{\mathrm{T}3}/p_{\mathrm{T}2}$ for large-angle radiation ($\Delta R_{23}$ > 1.0)

Three-jet events $\Delta R_{23}$ for soft radiation ($p_{\mathrm{T}3}/p_{\mathrm{T}2}$ < 0.3)

Three-jet events $\Delta R_{23}$ for hard radiation ($p_{\mathrm{T}3}/p_{\mathrm{T}2}$ > 0.6)

Z + two-jet events $p_{\mathrm{T}3}/p_{\mathrm{T}2}$ for small-angle radiation ($\Delta R_{23}$ < 1.0)

Z + two-jet events $p_{\mathrm{T}3}/p_{\mathrm{T}2}$ for large-angle radiation ($\Delta R_{23}$ > 1.0)

Z + two-jet events $\Delta R_{23}$ for soft radiation ($p_{\mathrm{T}3}/p_{\mathrm{T}2}$ < 0.3)

Z + two-jet events $\Delta R_{23}$ for hard radiation ($p_{\mathrm{T}3}/p_{\mathrm{T}2}$ > 0.6)

Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.

Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.

Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.

Four-body selection. (a) distributions of $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Small\,\Delta m}$ and (b) distribution of $R_{2\ell 4j}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Large\,\Delta m}$ for events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panel indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.

Four-body selection. (a) distributions of $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Small\,\Delta m}$ and (b) distribution of $R_{2\ell 4j}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Large\,\Delta m}$ for events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panel indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the Observed limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Two-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}, DF}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}, SF}$ and $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t} Z}$. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Three-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{VR(1)}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$ and $\mathrm{VR(2)}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Four-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$,$\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $VR^{4-body}_{VV}$ and $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{VV,lll}$. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Two-body selection. Background fit results for the different-flavour leptons binned SRs. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Two-body selection. Background fit results for the same-flavour leptons binned SRs. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Three-body selection. Observed event yields and background fit results for the three-body selection SRs. The ''Others'' category contains contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Four-body selection. Observed event yields and background fit results for SR$^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{\mathrm{Small}\,\Delta m}$ and SR$^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{\mathrm{Large}\,\Delta m}$. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Exclusion limits contours (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with 100% branching ratio in $\tilde{t}_1--\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The exclusion limits contours for the two-body, three-body and four-body selections are respectively shown in blue, green and red.

Exclusion limits contours (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with 100% branching ratio in $\tilde{t}_1--\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The exclusion limits contours for the two-body, three-body and four-body selections are respectively shown in blue, green and red.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm 1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty.The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty.The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Four-body selection Efficiency (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Four-body selection Efficiency (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta\ m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Four-body selection acceptance (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Four-body selection acceptance (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Three-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal strenght for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Four-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal strenght for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Three-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Four-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection. Background fit results for the $inclusive$ SRs. The Others category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=600~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=400~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the scalar signal model $t\bar{t} + \phi $ with $m(\phi)=150~ GeV$ and $m(\chi)=1~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the pseudoscalar signal model $t\bar{t} + a $ with $m(a)=150~ GeV$ and $m(\chi)=1~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=385~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=400~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=430~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=460~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=400~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=380~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=460~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=415~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=400~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=320~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Reference charged particle multiplicity distributions using only pions and kaons ...

Reference charged particle multiplicity distributions using only pions and kaons ...

Reference charged particle multiplicity distributions using only pions and kaons ...

Reference charged particle multiplicity distributions using only pions and kaons ...

Reference charged particle multiplicity distributions using only pions and kaons ...

Reference charged particle multiplicity distributions using only pions and kaons ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$\Delta N_\mathrm{p}$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ for 0-5%, ...

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$C_{n}$ of net-proton distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function of $N_{part}$.

$\kappa\sigma^2$ as a function of collision energy for Au+Au collisions for 0-5% centrality.

Efficiency uncorrected $C_n$ of net-proton proton and anti-proton multiplicity distribution in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ = 7.7 - 200 GeV as function of $\left\langle N_\text{part} \right\rangle$.

Efficiencies of proton and anti-proton as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ in Au+Au collisions for various $\sqrt{s_\text{NN}}$ and collision centralities.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Distribution of reconstructed protons from embedding simulations in 200 GeV top 2.5%-central Au+Au collisions.

Unfolded net-proton multiplicity distributions for $\sqrt{s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Unfolded net-proton multiplicity distributions for $\sqrt{s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Unfolded net-proton multiplicity distributions for $\sqrt{s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Unfolded net-proton multiplicity distributions for $\sqrt{s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Unfolded net-proton multiplicity distributions for $\sqrt{s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Unfolded net-proton multiplicity distributions for $\sqrt{s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Unfolded net-proton multiplicity distributions for $\sqrt{s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Cumulant ratios as a function of $N_{part}$ for net-proton distributions in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Cumulant ratios as a function of $N_{part}$ for net-proton distributions in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Collision centrality dependence of proton, anti-proton and net-proton cumulants

Cumulants and their ratios as a function of $<N_{part}>$, for the net-proton distribution

Centrality dependence of normalized correlation functions $\kappa_n/$kappa_1$ for proton and anti-proton multiplicity distribution

Rapidity acceptance dependence of cumulants of proton, anti-proton and net-proton multiplicity distributions in 0-5% central Au+Au collision ...

Rapidity acceptance dependence of normalized correlation functions up to fourth order.

Rapidity-acceptance dependence of cumulant ratios of proton, anti-proton and net-proton multiplicity distributions in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions...

pT-acceptance dependence of cumulants of proton, anti-proton and net-proton multiplicity distributions for 0-5% central Au+Au collisions ...

pT-acceptance dependence of the normalized correlation functions up to fourth order ($\kappa_n/\kappa_1$, $n$ = 2, 3, 4) for proton and anti-proton multiplicity distributions in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions ...

pT-acceptance dependence of cumulant ratios of proton, anti-proton and net-proton multiplicity distributions for 0-5% central Au+Au collisions ...

Cumulant ratios from HRG model as a function of collision energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$

UrQMD results on pT acceptance dependence for cumulant ratios for proton and baryon

Polynomial fit of cumulant ratios as a function of collision energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$

Polynomial fit of cumulant ratios as a function of collision energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$

Polynomial fit of cumulant ratios as a function of collision energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Collision energy dependence of $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$ and $C_4/C_2$ for net-proton multiplicity distribution in 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. The expreimental net-proton measurements are compared to corresponding values from UrQMD and HRG models within the expreimental acceptances.

Distribution of $S$, which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $2\ell^{sc}$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Distribution of $E_{T}^{miss}$, which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $3\ell$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Distribution of $\Delta R_{\ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm}}$, which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $3\ell$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Distribution of $m_{x\ell}$ ($x$=3), which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $3\ell$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Distribution of $p_{T}^{leading jet}$, which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $3\ell$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Distribution of $E_{T}^{miss}$, which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $4\ell$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Distribution of $\Delta R_{\ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm}}^{min}$, which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $4\ell$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Distribution of $m_{x\ell}$ ($x$=4), which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $4\ell$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Distribution of $p_{T}^{\ell_{1}}$, which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $4\ell$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Contributions from different categories of uncertainties relative to the expected background yields in the defined SRs, as obtained after performing the likelihood ratio test discussed in Section 9 in the paper. The uncertainties are shown for the combination of the individual channels of the $2\ell^{sc}$, $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ SRs. The SRs are indicated along the horizontal axis. In the HEPData entry, the x-axis is simplified for easier visualisation. The first number indicates the sub channel (2:$2\ell^{sc}$, 3:$3\ell$, 4:$4\ell$), while the second number indicates the mass point (2:200, 3:300, 4:400, 5:500).

Data event yields compared with the expected contributions from relevant background sources, for the combination of the individual channels of the $2\ell^{sc}$, $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ SRs. The total uncertainties in the expected event yields are shown as the hatched bands. The SRs are indicated along the horizontal axis. In the HEPData entry, the x-axis is simplified for easier visualisation. The first number indicates the sub channel (2:$2\ell^{sc}$, 3:$3\ell$, 4:$4\ell$), while the second number indicates the mass point (2:200, 3:300, 4:400, 5:500).

The $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution for the SRs of the $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ signal mass hypothesis, where the selection requirement on $E_{T}^{miss}$ has been removed. In the attached plot, the signals are stacked on top of the backgrounds while individuals contributions of the $2\ell^{sc}$ channel are shown in HEPData. The last bin, isolated by a vertical red dashed line, is inclusive and corresponds to the SR.

The $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution for the SRs of the $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ signal mass hypothesis, where the selection requirement on $E_{T}^{miss}$ has been removed. In the attached plot, the signals are stacked on top of the backgrounds while individuals contributions of the $3\ell$ channel are shown in HEPData. The last bin, isolated by a vertical red dashed line, is inclusive and corresponds to the SR.

The $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution for the SRs of the $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ signal mass hypothesis, where the selection requirement on $E_{T}^{miss}$ has been removed. In the attached plot, the signals are stacked on top of the backgrounds while individuals contributions of the $4\ell$ channel are shown in HEPData. The last bin, isolated by a vertical red dashed line, is inclusive and corresponds to the SR.

Observed and expected upper limits of the $H^{\pm\pm}$ pair production cross section times branching fraction at 95% CL obtained from the combination of 2$\ell^{sc}$, 3$\ell$ and 4$\ell$ channels. The region above the observed limit is excluded by the measurement. The bands represent the expected exclusion curves within one and two standard deviations.

The theoretical prediction of Figure 9(a) in the paper.

Observed and expected upper limits of the $H^{\pm\pm}$ and $H^{\pm}$ production cross section times branching fraction at 95% CL obtained from the combination of 2$\ell^{sc}$, 3$\ell$ and 4$\ell$ channels. The region above the observed limit is excluded by the measurement. The bands represent the expected exclusion curves within one and two standard deviations.

The theoretical prediction of Figure 9(b) in the paper.

Data event yields compared with the estimated background in the $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 200~GeV$ or $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 220~GeV$ SRs. SFOC 0 and SFOC 1,2 refer to the number of same-flavour opposite charge lepton pairs. The total uncertainties in the estimated background yields are shown as the hashed bands. In the HEPData entry, the x-axis is simplified for easier visualisation (1:$e^{\pm}e^{\pm}$, 2:$e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$, 3:$\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$, 4:SFOC 0, 5:SFOC 1,2, 6:$4\ell$).

Data event yields compared with the estimated background in the $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ or $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 350~GeV$ SRs. SFOC 0 and SFOC 1,2 refer to the number of same-flavour opposite charge lepton pairs. The total uncertainties in the estimated background yields are shown as the hashed bands. In the HEPData entry, the x-axis is simplified for easier visualisation (1:$e^{\pm}e^{\pm}$, 2:$e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$, 3:$\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$, 4:SFOC 0, 5:SFOC 1,2, 6:$4\ell$).

Data event yields compared with the estimated background in the $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 400~GeV$ or $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 450~GeV$ SRs. SFOC 0 and SFOC 1,2 refer to the number of same-flavour opposite charge lepton pairs. The total uncertainties in the estimated background yields are shown as the hashed bands. In the HEPData entry, the x-axis is simplified for easier visualisation (1:$e^{\pm}e^{\pm}$, 2:$e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$, 3:$\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$, 4:SFOC 0, 5:SFOC 1,2, 6:$4\ell$).

Data event yields compared with the estimated background in the $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 500~GeV$ or $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 550~GeV$ or $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 600~GeV$ SRs. SFOC 0 and SFOC 1,2 refer to the number of same-flavour opposite charge lepton pairs. The total uncertainties in the estimated background yields are shown as the hashed bands. In the HEPData entry, the x-axis is simplified for easier visualisation (1:$e^{\pm}e^{\pm}$, 2:$e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$, 3:$\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$, 4:SFOC 0, 5:SFOC 1,2, 6:$4\ell$).

$D_s^{\pm}$ invariant yield as a function of $p_{T}$ in 40-80% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.5 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

$D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio as a function of $p_{T}$ in 0-10% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.5 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

$D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio as a function of $p_{T}$ in 10-40% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.0 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/c, 2.0 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

$D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio as a function of $p_{T}$ in 40-80% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.5 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

$D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio as a function of $p_{T}$ in 10-20% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.5 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

$D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio as a function of $p_{T}$ in 20-40% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.5 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

The integrated $D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio within 1.5 < $p_{T}$ < 5.0 GeV/c as a function of collision centrality. The centrality bins are 60-80%, 40-60%, 20-40%, 10-20% and 0-10%.