Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 7 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The cluster efficiency in bins of hadronic and EM energy in region A. Region A is defined as 391 cm $< r <$ 695.5 cm and 400 cm $< |z| <$ 671 cm. The cluster efficiency is estimated with LLPs decaying to $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bins correspond to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. The cluster efficiency includes all cluster-level selections described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta\phi$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $d\bar{d}$ and $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 35% and 20% for region A and B, respectively.

The cluster efficiency in bins of hadronic and EM energy in region B. Region B is defined as 671 cm $< |z| <$ 1100 cm, $r <$ 695.5 cm, and $|\eta| <$ 2. The cluster efficiency is estimated with LLPs decaying to $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bins correspond to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. The cluster efficiency includes all cluster-level selections described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta\phi$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $d\bar{d}$ and $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 35% and 20% for region A and B, respectively.

The efficiency of $N_{station} > 1$ requirement in bins of hadronic energy in region B. Region B is defined as 671 cm $< |z| <$ 1100 cm, $r <$ 695.5 cm, and $|\eta| <$ 2. The cluster efficiency is estimated with LLPs decaying to $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bin corresponds to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. The efficiency is calculated with respect to clusters that pass all cluster-level cuts described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta\phi$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $d\bar{d}$ and $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 10%.

The geometric signal acceptance as a function of $c\tau$. The acceptance is shown for four different LLP mass hypotheses: 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV. The acceptance is defined by requiring at least 1 LLP to decay in the region defined as 400 cm $< |z| <$ 1100 cm, $r < $ 695.5 cm, and $|\eta| <$ 2.4.

Observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in the SRs for the onshell $W\!Z$ selection. The normalization factors of the $W\!Z$ sample are extracted separately for the 0j, low-H_T and high-H_T regions, and are treated separately in the combined fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented.

Observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in the SRs for the $W\!h$ selection. The normalization factors of the $W\!Z$ sample are extracted separately for the 0j, low-H_T and high-H_T regions, and are treated separately in the combined fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, tt&#772;+X and rare top processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented.

Comparison of the observed data and expected SM background yields in the SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ selection. The SM prediction is taken from the background-only fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. The hatched band indicates the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties. Distributions for wino/bino (+) &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ &rarr; $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;),m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between the observed and expected yields, calculated with the profile likelihood method from [169], adding a minus sign if the yield is below the prediction.

Comparison of the observed data and expected SM background yields in the SRs of the $W\!h$ selection. The SM prediction is taken from the background-only fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, tt&#772;+X and rare top processes. The hatched band indicates the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties. Distributions for wino/bino (+) &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ &rarr; $W\!h$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;),m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between the observed and expected yields, calculated with the profile likelihood method from [169], adding a minus sign if the yield is below the prediction.

Observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in SR^offWZ_lowETmiss. The normalization factors of the $W\!Z$ sample extracted separately for 0j and nj, and are treated separately in the combined fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented.

Observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in SR^offWZ_highETmiss. The normalization factors of the $W\!Z$ sample extracted separately for 0j and nj, and are treated separately in the combined fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented.

Comparison of the observed data and expected SM background yields in the SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The SM prediction is taken from the background-only fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. The hatched band indicates the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties. Distributions for wino/bino (+) &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ &rarr; $W^{*}\!Z^{*}$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;),m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between the observed and expected yields, calculated with the profile likelihood method from [169], adding a minus sign if the yield is below the prediction.

Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ and $W\!h$ selections. The figure shows (a) the &Delta;R_OS,near distribution in SR^Wh_DF-1, (b) the 3rd leading lepton p_T in SR^Wh_DF-2, and the (c) E_T^miss and (d) m_T distributions in SR^WZ_0j (with all SR-i bins of SR^WZ_0j summed up). The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes, except in the top panels, where triboson and Higgs production contributions are shown separately, and tt&#772;+X is merged into Others. Distributions for wino/bino (+) &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ &rarr; $W\!Z$/$W\!h$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;),m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.

Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ and $W\!h$ selections. The figure shows (a) the &Delta;R_OS,near distribution in SR^Wh_DF-1, (b) the 3rd leading lepton p_T in SR^Wh_DF-2, and the (c) E_T^miss and (d) m_T distributions in SR^WZ_0j (with all SR-i bins of SR^WZ_0j summed up). The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes, except in the top panels, where triboson and Higgs production contributions are shown separately, and tt&#772;+X is merged into Others. Distributions for wino/bino (+) &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ &rarr; $W\!Z$/$W\!h$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;),m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.

Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ and $W\!h$ selections. The figure shows (a) the &Delta;R_OS,near distribution in SR^Wh_DF-1, (b) the 3rd leading lepton p_T in SR^Wh_DF-2, and the (c) E_T^miss and (d) m_T distributions in SR^WZ_0j (with all SR-i bins of SR^WZ_0j summed up). The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes, except in the top panels, where triboson and Higgs production contributions are shown separately, and tt&#772;+X is merged into Others. Distributions for wino/bino (+) &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ &rarr; $W\!Z$/$W\!h$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;),m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.

Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ and $W\!h$ selections. The figure shows (a) the &Delta;R_OS,near distribution in SR^Wh_DF-1, (b) the 3rd leading lepton p_T in SR^Wh_DF-2, and the (c) E_T^miss and (d) m_T distributions in SR^WZ_0j (with all SR-i bins of SR^WZ_0j summed up). The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes, except in the top panels, where triboson and Higgs production contributions are shown separately, and tt&#772;+X is merged into Others. Distributions for wino/bino (+) &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ &rarr; $W\!Z$/$W\!h$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;),m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.

Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The figure shows the m_T^m_llmin distribution in (a) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj and (c) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and the |p_T^lep|/E_T^miss distribution in (d) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj. The contributing m_ll^min mass bins within each SR^offWZ category are summed together. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ &rarr; $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;),m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.

Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The figure shows the m_T^m_llmin distribution in (a) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj and (c) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and the |p_T^lep|/E_T^miss distribution in (d) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj. The contributing m_ll^min mass bins within each SR^offWZ category are summed together. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ &rarr; $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;),m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.

Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The figure shows the m_T^m_llmin distribution in (a) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj and (c) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and the |p_T^lep|/E_T^miss distribution in (d) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj. The contributing m_ll^min mass bins within each SR^offWZ category are summed together. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ &rarr; $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;),m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.

Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The figure shows the m_T^m_llmin distribution in (a) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj and (c) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and the |p_T^lep|/E_T^miss distribution in (d) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj. The contributing m_ll^min mass bins within each SR^offWZ category are summed together. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ &rarr; $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;),m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.

Observed (N_obs) yields after the discovery-fit and expected (N_exp) after the background-only fit, for the inclusive SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ and $W\!h$ selections. The third and fourth column list the 95 CL upper limits on the visible cross-section (&sigma;_vis⁹⁵) and on the number of signal events (S_obs⁹⁵). The fifth column (S_exp⁹⁵) shows the 95 CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and &plusmn; 1&sigma; excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the CLb value, i.e. the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis, and the discovery p-value (p(s = 0)). If the observed yield is below the expected yield, the p-value is capped at 0.5.

Observed (N_obs) yields after the discovery-fit and expected (N_exp) after the background-only fit, for the inclusive SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The third and fourth column list the 95 CL upper limits on the visible cross section (&sigma;_vis⁹⁵) and on the number of signal events (S_obs⁹⁵). The fifth column (S_exp⁹⁵) shows the 95 CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and &plusmn; 1&sigma; excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the CLb value, i.e. the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis, and the discovery p-value (p(s = 0)). If the observed yield is below the expected yield, the p-value is capped at 0.5.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_exp (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs &Delta;m plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb^-1 dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn; mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, &Omega; h²=0.1186&plusmn;0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tan&beta; is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_{exp} (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_{exp} (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_{exp} (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_{exp} (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_{exp} (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;, &chi;&#771;₂⁰) vs m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_{exp} (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with &plusmn;1&sigma;_theory (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.

Comparison of the observed data and expected SM background yields in the CRs and VRs of the RJR selection. The SM prediction is taken from the background-only fit. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt&#772;, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. The hatched band indicates the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between the observed and expected yields, calculated with the profile likelihood method from [169], adding a minus sign if the yield is below the prediction.

Observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in the SRs for the RJR selection. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt&#772;, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented.

Example of kinematic distributions after the background-only fit, showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in regions of the RJR selection. The figure shows the (a) p_T^&#8467;₁ and (b) H^PP_3,1 distributions in SR3&#8467;-Low, and the (c) p^CM_{T ISR} and (d) R_ISR distributions in SR3&#8467;-ISR. The last bin includes overflow. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt&#772;, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ &rarr; $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;),m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.

Example of kinematic distributions after the background-only fit, showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in regions of the RJR selection. The figure shows the (a) p_T^&#8467;₁ and (b) H^PP_3,1 distributions in SR3&#8467;-Low, and the (c) p^CM_{T ISR} and (d) R_ISR distributions in SR3&#8467;-ISR. The last bin includes overflow. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt&#772;, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ &rarr; $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;),m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.

Example of kinematic distributions after the background-only fit, showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in regions of the RJR selection. The figure shows the (a) p_T^&#8467;₁ and (b) H^PP_3,1 distributions in SR3&#8467;-Low, and the (c) p^CM_{T ISR} and (d) R_ISR distributions in SR3&#8467;-ISR. The last bin includes overflow. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt&#772;, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ &rarr; $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;),m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.

Example of kinematic distributions after the background-only fit, showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in regions of the RJR selection. The figure shows the (a) p_T^&#8467;₁ and (b) H^PP_3,1 distributions in SR3&#8467;-Low, and the (c) p^CM_{T ISR} and (d) R_ISR distributions in SR3&#8467;-ISR. The last bin includes overflow. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt&#772;, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ &rarr; $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(&chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;),m(&chi;&#771;₁⁰)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.

{Results of the discovery-fit for the SRs of the RJR selection, calculated using pseudo-experiments.} The first and second column list the 95 CL upper limits on the visible cross section (&sigma;_vis⁹⁵) and on the number of signal events (S_obs⁹⁵). The third column (S_exp⁹⁵) shows the 95 CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and &plusmn; 1&sigma; excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the CLb value, i.e. the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis, and the discovery p-value (p(s = 0)). If the observed yield is below the expected yield, the p-value is capped at 0.5. vspace{0.5em}

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$-mediated model, for the wino/bino (+) scenario, as in Figure 17. The black numbers represent the observed (a,c,e,g) and expected (b,d,f,h) upper cross-section limits.

Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$-mediated model, for the wino/bino (+) scenario, as in Figure 17. The black numbers represent the observed (a,c,e,g) and expected (b,d,f,h) upper cross-section limits.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c) truth-level acceptances and (b,d) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^WZ_0j, (c,d) SR^WZ_nj regions of the onshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c) truth-level acceptances and (b,d) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^WZ_0j, (c,d) SR^WZ_nj regions of the onshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c) truth-level acceptances and (b,d) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^WZ_0j, (c,d) SR^WZ_nj regions of the onshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c) truth-level acceptances and (b,d) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^WZ_0j, (c,d) SR^WZ_nj regions of the onshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^Wh_{low-m_ll-0j}, (c,d) SR^Wh_{low-m_ll-nj}, and (e,f) SR^Wh_DF regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^Wh_{low-m_ll-0j}, (c,d) SR^Wh_{low-m_ll-nj}, and (e,f) SR^Wh_DF regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^Wh_{low-m_ll-0j}, (c,d) SR^Wh_{low-m_ll-nj}, and (e,f) SR^Wh_DF regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^Wh_{low-m_ll-0j}, (c,d) SR^Wh_{low-m_ll-nj}, and (e,f) SR^Wh_DF regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^Wh_{low-m_ll-0j}, (c,d) SR^Wh_{low-m_ll-nj}, and (e,f) SR^Wh_DF regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^Wh_{low-m_ll-0j}, (c,d) SR^Wh_{low-m_ll-nj}, and (e,f) SR^Wh_DF regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

The &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, (c,d) SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, (e,f) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and (g,h) SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.

Summary of onshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰,&chi;&#771;₁⁰) = (300,200) GeV and m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰,&chi;&#771;₁⁰) = (600,100) GeV &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ signal points, for the wino/bino (+) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb^-1, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks per inclusive regions, and then further for each SR. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5.

Summary of $W\!h$ event selections for the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰,&chi;&#771;₁⁰) = (190,60) GeV &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ signal point, for the wino/bino (+) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb^-1, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks per inclusive regions, and then further for each SR. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5.

Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰,&chi;&#771;₁⁰) = (250,235) GeV &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ signal point, for the wino/bino (+) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb^-1, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.

Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰,&chi;&#771;₁⁰) = (125,85) GeV &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ signal point, for the wino/bino (+) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb^-1, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.

Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰,&chi;&#771;₁⁰) = (250,170) GeV &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ signal point, for the wino/bino (+) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb^-1, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.

Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰,&chi;&#771;₁⁰) = (250,235) GeV &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ signal point, for the wino/bino (-) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb^-1, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.

Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰,&chi;&#771;₁⁰) = (125,85) GeV &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ signal point, for the wino/bino (-) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb^-1, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.

Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰,&chi;&#771;₁⁰) = (250,170) GeV &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ signal point, for the wino/bino (-) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb^-1, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.

Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰,&chi;&#771;₁⁰) = (120,100) GeV &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ signal point, for the higgsino interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb^-1, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.

Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰,&chi;&#771;₁⁰) = (100,40) GeV &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ signal point, for the higgsino interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb^-1, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.

Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(&chi;&#771;₂⁰,&chi;&#771;₁⁰) = (185,125) GeV &chi;&#771;₁^&plusmn;/&chi;&#771;₂⁰ signal point, for the higgsino interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb^-1, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-0j, SR^offWZ_lowETmiss-nj, SR^offWZ_highETmiss-0j, and SR^offWZ_highETmiss-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the 2l categories for the signal produced via vector boson fusion.

$m_{X}^{T}$ distribution in data in the 0l 2b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}^{T}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}^{T}$ distribution in data in the 0l $\leq$1b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}^{T}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2e 2b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2e $\leq$1b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2$\mu$ 2b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2$\mu$ $\leq$1b non-VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}^{T}$ distribution in data in the 0l 2b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}^{T}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}^{T}$ distribution in data in the 0l $\leq$1b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}^{T}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2e 2b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2e $\leq$1b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2$\mu$ 2b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

$m_{X}$ distribution in data in the 2$\mu$ $\leq$1b VBF category. The data is shown as Events/10 GeV. The distribution is shown up 4000 GeV, which corresponds to the event with the highest $m_{X}$ observed in the SR.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma \mathcal{B}$(Z'-> ZH) with all categories combined for the non-VBF signal, including all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The inner green band and the outer yellow band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of expected limits under the background-only hypothesis. The CMS search for a heavy resonance using 2016 data and the same final state [JHEP 11 (2018) 172] is shown as a comparison.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma \mathcal{B}$(Z'-> ZH) with all categories combined for the VBF signal, including all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The inner green band and the outer yellow band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of expected limits under the background-only hypothesis.

Observed exclusion limit in the space of the HVT model parameters [$g_{V}c_{H}$, $g^{2}c_{F}/g_{V}$] for mass hypotheses of 2 TeV for the non-VBF signal.

Observed exclusion limit in the space of the HVT model parameters [$g_{V}c_{H}$, $g^{2}c_{F}/g_{V}$] for mass hypotheses of 3 TeV for the non-VBF signal.

Observed exclusion limit in the space of the HVT model parameters [$g_{V}c_{H}$, $g^{2}c_{F}/g_{V}$] for mass hypotheses of 4 TeV for the non-VBF signal.

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 $139~fb^{-1}$.

The ratios (&mu;) of the 95&#37; C.L. upper limits on the combined s&rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723; and s&rarr; ZZ cross section to simplified model expectations for the m_Z'=1 TeV scenario, for various m_s hypotheses. The observed limits (solid line) are consistent with the expectation under the SM-only hypothesis (dashed line) within uncertainties (filled band), except for a small excess for m_s=160 GeV, discussed in the text.

The ratios (&mu;) of the 95&#37; C.L. upper limits on the combined s&rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723; and s&rarr; ZZ cross section to simplified model expectations for the m_Z'=1.7 TeV scenario, for various m_s hypotheses. The observed limits (solid line) are consistent with the expectation under the SM-only hypothesis (dashed line) within uncertainties (filled band), except for a small excess for m_s=160 GeV, discussed in the text.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) × B(s&rarr; VV) for m_Z'=0.5 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) × B(s&rarr; VV) process for m_Z'=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) × B(s&rarr; VV) for m_Z'=1 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) × B(s&rarr; VV) process for m_Z'=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) × B(s&rarr; VV) for m_Z'=1.7 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) × B(s&rarr; VV) process for m_Z'=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

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

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

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

The product of acceptance and efficiency (A &times; &varepsilon;), defined as the number of signal events satisfying the full set of selection criteria in the merged or intermediate signal regions, divided by the total number of generated signal events, for the s(W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) dark Higgs signal points with dark Higgs boson mass m_s and Z' boson mass m_Z'.

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

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin signal regions of the analysis.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.

$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

The normalisation factors for the dominant backgrounds of the analysis in each of the multi-bin and single-bin regions.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin validation regions to test the $N_{\mathrm{jet}}$ extraction.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin validation regions to test the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ extrapolation.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin validation regions to test the $N_{\mathrm{jet}}$ extraction.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin validation regions to test the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ extrapolation.

The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the two-step decay.

The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the Gtt decay.

The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the RPV decay.

Number of events in each signal region broken down by background type and the number of observed data events.

From left to right; the $95\%$ CL upper limits on the visible cross section (${\langle \epsilon\sigma \rangle}^{95}_{obs}$) and on the number of signal events. Next is the $95\%$ CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number of background events. The last two columns show the confidence level for the background only hypothesis ($CL_{b}$) and the dicovery $p$-value along with the Gaussian significance (Z).

Visualisation of the highest jet multiplicity event selected in signal regions targeting long cascade decays of pair-produced gluinos. This event was recorded by ATLAS on 23 October 2016, and contains 16 jets, illustrated by cones. Yellow blocks represent the calorimeter energy measured in noise-suppressed clusters. Of the reconstructed jets, 13 (11) have transverse momenta above 50 GeV (80 GeV), with 3 (2) being b-tagged. The leading jet has a transverse momentum of 507 GeV, and the sum of jet transverse momenta $H_T=2.9$ TeV. A value of 343 GeV is observed for the $E_{T}^{miss}$, whose direction is shown by the dashed red line, producing a significance $S(E_{T}^{miss})=6.4$. The sum of the masses of large-radius jets is evaluated as $M_{J}^{\Sigma}=1070$ GeV.

Visualisation of the highest jet multiplicity event selected in a control region used to make predictions of the background from multijet production. This event was recorded by ATLAS on 18 July 2018, and contains 19 jets, illustrated by cones. Yellow blocks represent the calorimeter energy measured in in noise-suppressed clusters. Of the reconstructed jets, 16 (10) have transverse momenta above 50 GeV (80 GeV). No jets were b-tagged. The leading et has a transverse momentum of 371 GeV, and the sum of jet transverse momenta $H_T=2.2$ TeV. A value of 8 GeV is observed for the $E_{T}^{miss}$, whose direction is shown by the dashed red line, producing a significance $S(E_{T}^{miss})=0.2$. The sum of the masses of large-radius jets is evaluated as $M_{J}^{\Sigma}=767$ GeV.