Expected and observed upper limits for the b-quark-associated Higgs boson production cross section times branching fraction of the decay into a b quark pair at 95% CL as functions of $m_\phi$ for the 2018 FH category. The vertical dashed lines indicate the boundaries of usage of the different fit ranges, as reflected in the rightmost column of Table 2.

Expected and observed upper limits for the b-quark-associated Higgs boson production cross section times branching fraction of the decay into a b quark pair at 95% CL as functions of $m_\phi$, corresponding to the Run 2 combination. The vertical dashed line separates the mass range where only the 2017 SL category contributes on its left, from the region where also the 2017 FH and 2018 FH categories contribute on its right. The expected limits from the 2017 SL, 2017 FH, and 2018 FH datasets as well as from the previously published result based on the 2016 dataset are also shown as colored lines.

Interpretation in the $M_h^{125}$ scenario of the MSSM: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $m_{A}$. The higgsino mass parameter has been set to $\mu = +1$ TeV. The hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV.

Interpretation in the $M_h^{125}$ scenario of the MSSM: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $m_{A}$. The higgsino mass parameter has been set to $\mu = -1$ TeV. The hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV.

Interpretation in the $M_h^{125}$ scenario of the MSSM: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $m_{A}$. The higgsino mass parameter has been set to $\mu = -2$ TeV. The hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV.

Interpretation in the $M_h^{125}$ scenario of the MSSM: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $m_{A}$. The higgsino mass parameter has been set to $\mu = -3$ TeV. The hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV.

Interpretation in the $m_h^{mod+}$ scenario of the MSSM: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $m_{A}$. The hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV.

Interpretation in the hMSSM scenario of the MSSM: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $m_{A}$.

Interpretation in 2HDM scenarios: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as a function of $m_{A}$ for cos(beta-alpha) = 0.1, for the 2HDM $\it Type-II$ scenario.

Interpretation in 2HDM scenarios: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of cos(beta-alpha) for masses of $m_{A} = m_{H} = 300$ GeV, for the 2HDM $\it Type-II$ scenario.

Interpretation in 2HDM scenarios: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as a function of $m_{A}$ for cos(beta-alpha) = 0.1, for the 2HDM $\it Flipped$ scenario.

Interpretation in 2HDM scenarios: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of cos(beta-alpha) for masses of $m_{A} = m_{H} = 300$ GeV, for the 2HDM $\it Flipped$ scenario.

Interpretation in the 2HDM flipped scenario: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of cos(beta-alpha) for mass of $m_{A} = m_{H} = 140$ GeV.

Interpretation in the 2HDM flipped scenario: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of cos(beta-alpha) for mass of $m_{A} = m_{H} = 600$ GeV.

Interpretation in the 2HDM flipped scenario: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of cos(beta-alpha) for mass of $m_{A} = m_{H} = 900$ GeV.

Interpretation in the 2HDM flipped scenario: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of cos(beta-alpha) for mass of $m_{A} = m_{H} = 1200$ GeV.

Simulated signal shapes for three representative values of the Higgs boson mass $m_\phi$ in the 2017 SL channel.

Simulated signal shapes for three representative values of the Higgs boson mass $m_\phi$ in the 2017 FH channel.

Simulated signal shapes for three representative values of the Higgs boson mass $m_\phi$ in the 2018 FH channel.

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the SL category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the SL category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the SL category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the FH category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the FH category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the FH category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the FH category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2018 analysis in the FH category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2018 analysis in the FH category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2018 analysis in the FH category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2018 analysis in the FH category

The contour for the excluded mass--lifetime region for stau pair production obtained with the di-track search. All masses and lifetimes shown that are below the curve and above 200 GeV are excluded by the observed data (while the expected exclusion is between the upper curve down to 210 GeV for lifetimes above 3000 ns). The sensitivity extends indefinitely to longer lifetimes.

The contour for the excluded mass--lifetime region for stau pair production obtained with the di-track search. All masses and lifetimes shown that are below the curve and above 200 GeV are excluded by the observed data (while the expected exclusion is between the upper curve down to 210 GeV for lifetimes above 3000 ns). The sensitivity extends indefinitely to longer lifetimes.

The contour for the excluded mass--lifetime region for stau pair production obtained with the di-track search. All masses and lifetimes shown that are below the curve and above 200 GeV are excluded by the observed data (while the expected exclusion is between the upper curve down to 210 GeV for lifetimes above 3000 ns). The sensitivity extends indefinitely to longer lifetimes.

The distribution of data and predicted background in the di-track Exclusion-SR. The observed data events are indicated as magenta circles if they are inside the mass-compatibility angle (shown as grey lines) and as orange diamonds if they are outside, while the blue area is the mass distribution of the expected background. The last bins include overflow events

The distribution of data and predicted background in the di-track Exclusion-SR. The observed data events are indicated as magenta circles if they are inside the mass-compatibility angle (shown as grey lines) and as orange diamonds if they are outside, while the blue area is the mass distribution of the expected background. The last bins include overflow events

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 3 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 3 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 3 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 3 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 3 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 3 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 10 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 10 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 10 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 10 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 10 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 10 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 30 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 30 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 30 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 30 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 30 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with 30 ns lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with a detector-stable lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with a detector-stable lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with a detector-stable lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with a detector-stable lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with a detector-stable lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus mass for staus with a detector-stable lifetime.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 200 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 200 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 200 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 200 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 200 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 200 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 300 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 300 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 300 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 300 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 300 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 300 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 400 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 400 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 400 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 400 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 400 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 400 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 500 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 500 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 500 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 500 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 500 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 500 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 600 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 600 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 600 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 600 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 600 GeV staus.

The 95\% CL exclusion limits from the di-track search on cross-section versus lifetime for 600 GeV staus.

The observed and expected ($\pm2\sigma$) upper limits at 95% CL on the branching ratio for $H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow \gamma\gamma\tau\tau$ as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis $m_{a}$.

The polynomial parameterisation of the total signal selection efficiency as a function of $m_{a}$, defined as the fraction of the reconstructed and selected events out of the total number of events in the signal simulated samples.

Measured values of $R(\tau/e)$ in the different $p_T$ bins. The first row gives the main inclusive measurement of $R(\tau/e)$.

Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in the fit to data. Different individual components used in the fit are combined into categories. The size of the impact each group of uncertainties has on $R(\tau/e)$, which is shown in the second column, is assessed by subtracting in quadrature the uncertainty from the nominal fit and the fit with the relevant nuisance parameters fixed to their post-fit values. The group 'Other sources' includes the uncertainties due to trigger, JVT, luminosity, and pile-up.

Distributions of $|d_0|$ for the $\mu e$ channel of the nominal sample in $7 < p_T < 10$ GeV bin. The data are represented by black markers. The different contributions to the nominal sample, taken from simulation after the fit (`Post-Fit'), are shown by stacked histograms. The bottom panels show the ratio of the data to the simulation prediction after the fit. The systematic uncertainties in the prediction with the constraints from the fit and the correlation between the nuisance parameters applied are represented by the blue hatched bands.

Distributions of $|d_0|$ for the $\mu e$ channel of the nominal sample in $10 < p_T < 20$ GeV bin. The data are represented by black markers. The different contributions to the nominal sample, taken from simulation after the fit (`Post-Fit'), are shown by stacked histograms. The bottom panels show the ratio of the data to the simulation prediction after the fit. The systematic uncertainties in the prediction with the constraints from the fit and the correlation between the nuisance parameters applied are represented by the blue hatched bands.

Distributions of $|d_0|$ for the $\mu e$ channel of the nominal sample in $20 < p_T < 250$ GeV bin. The data are represented by black markers. The different contributions to the nominal sample, taken from simulation after the fit (`Post-Fit'), are shown by stacked histograms. The bottom panels show the ratio of the data to the simulation prediction after the fit. The systematic uncertainties in the prediction with the constraints from the fit and the correlation between the nuisance parameters applied are represented by the blue hatched bands.

Distributions of $|d_0|$ for the $e e$ channel of the nominal sample in $5 < p_T < 10$ GeV bin. The data are represented by black markers. The different contributions to the nominal sample, taken from simulation after the fit (`Post-Fit'), are shown by stacked histograms. The bottom panels show the ratio of the data to the simulation prediction after the fit. The systematic uncertainties in the prediction with the constraints from the fit and the correlation between the nuisance parameters applied are represented by the blue hatched bands.

Distributions of $|d_0|$ for the $e e$ channel of the nominal sample in $10 < p_T < 20$ GeV bin. The data are represented by black markers. The different contributions to the nominal sample, taken from simulation after the fit (`Post-Fit'), are shown by stacked histograms. The bottom panels show the ratio of the data to the simulation prediction after the fit. The systematic uncertainties in the prediction with the constraints from the fit and the correlation between the nuisance parameters applied are represented by the blue hatched bands.

Distributions of $|d_0|$ for the $e e$ channel of the nominal sample in $20 < p_T < 250$ GeV bin. The data are represented by black markers. The different contributions to the nominal sample, taken from simulation after the fit (`Post-Fit'), are shown by stacked histograms. The bottom panels show the ratio of the data to the simulation prediction after the fit. The systematic uncertainties in the prediction with the constraints from the fit and the correlation between the nuisance parameters applied are represented by the blue hatched bands.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for pp->tbH(->Wh) as function of the charged Higgs boson mass for the resolved qqbb signal region.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for pp->tbH(->Wh) as function of the charged Higgs boson mass for the resolved lvbb signal region.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for pp->tbH(->Wh) as function of the charged Higgs boson mass for the merged lvbb signal region

Product of acceptance and efficiency for pp->tbH(->Wh) as function of the charged Higgs boson mass for the merged qqbb signal region

Distributions of the mWh observable in the low-purity signal regions of the resolved qqbb 5jex3bex event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the low-purity signal regions of the resolved qqbb 5jex4bin event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the low-purity signal regions of the resolved qqbb 6jin3bex event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the low-purity signal regions of the resolved qqbb 6jin4bin event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the high-purity signal regions of the resolved qqbb 5jex3bex event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the high-purity signal regions of the resolved qqbb 5jex4bin event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the high-purity signal regions of the resolved qqbb 6jin3bex event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the high-purity signal regions of the resolved qqbb 6jin4bin event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the signal regions of the resolved lvbb 5jex3bex event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the signal regions of the resolved lvbb 5jex4bin event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the signal regions of the resolved lvbb 6jin3bex event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the signal regions of the resolved lvbb 6jin4bin event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

The mWh distributions in the Low-NN-score SRs of the merged qqbb 0b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the Low-NN-score SRs of the merged qqbb 1b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the High-NN-score SRs of the merged qqbb 0b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the High-NN-score SRs of the merged qqbb 1b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the Low-NN-score SRs of the merged lvbb 0b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the Low-NN-score SRs of the merged lvbb 1b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the Medium-NN-score SRs of the merged lvbb 0b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the Medium-NN-score SRs of the merged lvbb 1b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the High-NN-score SRs of the merged lvbb 0b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the High-NN-score SRs of the merged lvbb 1b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

Cutflow table for a few selected signal samples after applying the selection requirements of the resolved analysis. At the initial cut stage, all events from the tbH ± → W ± h(→ b b) production process (including those from the fully hadronic decay channel) are considered.

Cutflow table for a few selected signal samples after applying the selection requirements of the merged analysis. At the initial cut stage, all events from the tbH ± → W ± h(→ bb) production process (including those from the fully hadronic decay channel) are considered.

Distributions in $S_T$ in the SR for the electron channel, after a background-only fit to the data. The signal distributions are scaled to the cross section predicted by the theory. The hatched bands show the post-fit uncertainty band, combining all sources of uncertainty. The ratio of data to the background predictions is shown in the panels below the distributions.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp-1c.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp-1c.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying into charm quarks and neutralinos for the fit with the best expected CL$_\mathrm{S}$.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section $(-1\sigma)$ for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the minimal coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section $(+1\sigma)$ for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the minimal coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the minimal coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the minimal coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section $(-1\sigma)$ for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section $(+1\sigma)$ for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Distribution of $R_{\mathrm{ISR}}$ in SR-Comp-1c showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(450,430)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}\mathrm{ Sig.}$ in SR-HM1 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(1000,1)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{min}}(c)$ in SR-HM2 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(750,450)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $R_{\mathrm{ISR}}$ in SR-Comp1 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(600,550)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $R_{\mathrm{ISR}}$ in SR-Comp2 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(550,470)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $R_{\mathrm{ISR}}$ in SR-Comp3 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(550,375)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp-1c.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp1.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp2.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp3.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp-1c.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp1.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp2.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp3.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc.

Cutflow table for SR-Comp-1c using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (450,430)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-Comp1 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (600,550)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-Comp2 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (550,470)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-Comp3 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (550,375)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM1 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (1000,1)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM2 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (750,450)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM3 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (750,450)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM-Disc using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (750,450)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM1 using the $m(\mathrm{LQ}_{21}^\mathrm{u}) = 600$ GeV signal point, with a 50% branching fraction to $c\nu$, as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM2 using the $m(\mathrm{LQ}_{21}^\mathrm{u}) = 600$ GeV signal point, with a 50% branching fraction to $c\nu$, as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM3 using the $m(\mathrm{LQ}_{21}^\mathrm{u}) = 600$ GeV signal point, with a 50% branching fraction to $c\nu$, as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM-Disc using the $m(\mathrm{LQ}_{21}^\mathrm{u}) = 600$ GeV signal point, with a 50% branching fraction to $c\nu$, as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

The $G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}}$ distribution in the PASS region for events passing the event selection and with $55 < p_{\mathrm{T}} < 200$ GeV.

The $G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}}$ distribution in the FAIL region for events passing the event selection and with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 200$ GeV.

The $G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}}$ distribution in the PASS region for events passing the event selection and with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 200$ GeV.

Mass spectrum predicted in the signal region defined by $G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}} > 0.22$ and $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 70$ GeV.

Cross section limits for gluino and supersymmetric top R-hadrons for both background prediction methods.

Cross section limits for supersymmetric tau models for both background prediction methods.

Cross section limits for DY-produced tau prime models (single and multicharged) for both background prediction methods.

Cross section limits for Z prime to multicharged tau prime model for both background prediction methods. All Z prime models assume a narrow width, and a 100% branching fraction to 600 GeV tau primes.

2D exclusion showing the observed cross section limit as a function of the multicharged tau prime mass and Z prime mass for the ionization method.

2D exclusion showing the observed cross section limit as a function of the multicharged tau prime mass and Z prime mass for the mass method.

Cumulative selection efficiency for the data and for two signal hypotheses.

Expected and observed mass limits obtained using 2017-2018 data for various HSCP candidate models,for the two background estimate methods.

Mass windows used in the mass method as a function of the signal target mass for the signal samples assuming a charge of $1e$ and $2e$, as appropriate to the signal model.

Mass spectrum predicted in the validation region defined by $0.018 < G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}} < 0.057$ and $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 70$ GeV. The thresholds used in the $G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}}$ requirement represent the 50% and 90% quantile of the distribution.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.3$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.3<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.6$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.6<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.9$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.9<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<1.2$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $1.2<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<2.1$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $2.1<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<2.4$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.3$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.3<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.6$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.6<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.9$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.9<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<1.2$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $1.2<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<2.1$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $2.1<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<2.4$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency as a function of $\beta$, for the $\tilde{g}$ signals.

Trigger efficiency as a function of $\beta$, for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{g}$ R-hadrons obtained with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{g}$ R-hadrons obtained with the mass method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{t}$ R-hadrons obtained with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{t}$ R-hadrons obtained with the mass method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{\tau}$ obtained with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{\tau}$ obtained with the mass method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{\tau}$ production within the GMSB SPS7 modelobtained with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{\tau}$ production within the GMSB SPS7 model obtained with the mass method.

Cross section limits for DY-produced $\tau'$ with $abs(Q) = 1e$ with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for DY-produced $\tau'$ with $abs(Q) = 1e$ with the mass method.

Cross section limits for DY-produced $\tau'$ with $abs(Q) = 2e$ with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for DY-produced $\tau'$ with $abs(Q) = 2e$ with the mass method.

Cross section limits for the production of $Z'$ boson decaying into a pair of $\tau'$ fermions of charge $2e$ (with a branching fraction equal to 1 and a fixed $\tau'$ mass of 600 GeV), obtained with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for the production of $Z'$ boson decaying into a pair of $\tau'$ fermions of charge $2e$ (with a branching fraction equal to 1 and a fixed $\tau'$ mass of 600 GeV), obtained with the mass method.

Two-dimensional exclusion showing the observed cross section limit as a function of the masses of the $\tau'$ (on the $x$ axis) and of the $Z'$ boson (on the $y$ axis), for the ionization method.

Two-dimensional exclusion showing the observed cross section limit as a function of the masses of the $\tau'$ (on the $x$ axis) and of the $Z'$ boson (on the $y$ axis), for the mass method.

Expected background yield, expected signal yield, and observed data for the mass method for 2017.

Expected background yield, expected signal yield, and observed data for the mass method for 2018.

Selection efficieny for GMSB supersymmetric $\tau$.

Selection efficiency for gluino R-hardon samples.

Selection efficiency for supersymmetric top R-hadrons.

Selection efficiency for pair-produced supersymmetric $\tau$.

Selection efficiency for $\tau'$ with $|Q| = 1e$.

Selection efficiecny for $\tau'$ with $|Q| = 2e$.

Selection efficiency for $Z'$ (mass = 3 TeV) going to $\tau'$ with $|Q| = 2e$.

Selection efficiency for $Z'$ (mass 5 TeV) goes to $\tau'$ with $|Q| = 2e$.

Selection efficiency for $Z'$ going to $\tau'$ (mass 600 GeV) with $|Q| = 2e$.

Selection efficiency for $Z'$ going to $\tau'$ (mass 1 TeV) with charge $|Q| = 2e$.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the compressed SUSY simplified model with a bino-like LSP and wino-like NLSPs being considered. These are shown with $\pm1\sigma_\text{exp}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm1\sigma^{\text{SUSY}}_{\text{theory}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the ATLAS searches using the soft lepton signature is illustrated by the blue region while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in grey.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the compressed SUSY simplified model with a bino-like LSP and wino-like NLSPs being considered. These are shown with $\pm1\sigma_ ext{exp}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm1\sigma^{ ext{SUSY}}_{ ext{theory}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the ATLAS searches using the soft lepton signature is illustrated by the blue region while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in grey.

The expected upper limits on the cross-sections at 95% CL for the simplified SUSY model featuring the production of mass-degenerate pairs of wino-like $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$ particles in association with at least two jets. The production modes considered are $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$.

The observed upper limits on the cross-sections at 95% CL for the simplified SUSY model featuring the production of mass-degenerate pairs of wino-like $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$ particles in association with at least two jets. The production modes considered are $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$.

Truth-level signal acceptances in $\text{SR}_\text{2j}$ with BDT score $\in [0.88, 1.0]$. All of the considered production modes ($\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$) are included. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation. The generator-level selections are the same as the ones at reconstruction level.

Truth-level signal acceptances in $\text{SR}_{\geq\text{3j}}$ with BDT score $\in [0.88, 1.0]$. All of the considered production modes ($\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$) are included. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation. The generator-level selections are the same as the ones at reconstruction level.

Signal efficiencies in $\text{SR}_\text{2j}$ with BDT score $\in [0.88, 1.0]$. All of the considered production modes ($\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$) are included. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. The generator-level selections are the same as the ones at reconstruction level.

Signal efficiencies in $\text{SR}_{\geq\text{3j}}$ with BDT score $\in [0.88, 1.0]$. All of the considered production modes ($\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$) are included. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. The generator-level selections are the same as the ones at reconstruction level.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde\chi^0_2) =100~\text{GeV}$ and $\Delta m(\tilde\chi^0_2 / \tilde\chi^\pm_1,\tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.2~\text{GeV}, 1.0~\text{GeV},$ and $5.0~\text{GeV}$. The first number in the column for each mass point corresponds to the signal event yield after applying the associated cut while the second number in parentheses represents the efficiency with respect to the previous cut. All of the production modes are included. The total cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma$) includes the cuts applied at parton level as described in the main text.

Distributions of the $\mathrm{NN^{SvsB}}$ output for data and the expected background after the likelihood fit in the $SR_{cQu --}$ signal region. The post-fit background expectations are shown as filled histograms, the combined pre-fit background expectations are shown as dashed lines. The signal distribution using the Wilson coefficient values $c_{tu}^{(1)}=0.04$, $c_{Qu}^{(1)}=0.1$, $c_{Qu}^{(8)}=0.1$ is shown with a dotted line, normalized to the same number of events as the background.

Summary of the observed and predicted number of events in the five 2$\ell$ control regions. The background prediction is shown after the combined likelihood fit to data under the signal-plus-background hypothesis across all control regions and signal regions. The uncertainties in the total yields are smaller than the sum in quadrature of the uncertainties in the individual contributions due to anti-correlations resulting from the likelihood fit. Int Conv refers to events with photon conversions in the inner detector, while Mat Conv refers to events with photon conversions in the detector material. QMisID refers to events with charge-misidentified lepton.

Summary of the observed and predicted number of events in the four 3$\ell$ control regions. The background prediction is shown after the combined likelihood fit to data under the signal-plus-background hypothesis across all control regions and signal regions. The uncertainties in the total yields are smaller than the sum in quadrature of the uncertainties in the individual contributions due to anti-correlations resulting from the likelihood fit. Int Conv refers to events with photon conversions in the inner detector, while Mat Conv refers to events with photon conversions in the detector material. QMisID refers to events with charge-misidentified lepton.

Comparison of the observed limits on the three WCs to the limit obtained by the ATLAS Run~1 analysis of events with $b$-tagged jets and a same-sign lepton pair [JHEP10(2015)150]. The cross-section limits from that analysis are converted to the limits on the WCs by using the fitted EFT parametrization. The bounds on the WCs are shown at the 68$\%$ CL (solid) and/or 95$\%$ CL (dashed) levels. For the ATLAS Run~1 analysis only the bounds at 95$\%$ CL are available. The vertical bar represents the SM prediction. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$.

Observed lower limits at 95$\%$ confidence level on the scale of new physics $\Lambda$ for Wilson coefficient values of 0.01, 1 and $4\pi^2$. The limits are compared with the limits obtained by the ATLAS Run~1 analysis of events with $b$-tagged jets and a same-sign lepton pair.

Observed and expected limits at 95$\%$ confidence level on the cross-section of $\sigma(pp \rightarrow tt)$.

2D likelihood scans of the Wilson coefficients $c_{tu}^{(1)}$ versus $c_{Qu}^{(1)}$. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient pair.

2D likelihood scans of the Wilson coefficients $c_{tu}^{(1)}$ versus $c_{Qu}^{(8)}$. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient pair.

2D likelihood scans of the Wilson coefficients $c_{Qu}^{(1)}$ versus $c_{Qu}^{(8)}$. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient pair.

1D-likelihood scan for $c_{tu}^{(1)}$. The observed and expected limits at 68\% and 95\% confidence level (CL) can be read off by finding the intersection of the likelihood scan curve with the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ lines. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient value.

1D-likelihood scan for $c_{Qu}^{(1)}$. The observed and expected limits at 68\% and 95\% confidence level (CL) can be read off by finding the intersection of the likelihood scan curve with the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ lines. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient value.

1D-likelihood scan for $c_{Qu}^{(8)}$. The observed and expected limits at 68\% and 95\% confidence level (CL) can be read off by finding the intersection of the likelihood scan curve with the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ lines. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient value.