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.

Measured muon multiplicity distribution compared with simulations from CORSIKA Monte Carlo generator using QGSJET-II-04 (top), SIBYLL 2.3 (middle), and EPOS-LHC (bottom) as hadronic interaction models for proton and iron primary cosmic rays. Iron points are slightly shifted to the right to avoid overlapping with the data points. The total uncertainties in the MC simulations are given by the vertical bars, while the boxes give the systematic uncertainties of the data and the vertical bars the statistical ones.

Measured muon multiplicity distribution compared with simulations from CORSIKA Monte Carlo generator using QGSJET-II-04 (top), SIBYLL 2.3 (middle), and EPOS-LHC (bottom) as hadronic interaction models for proton and iron primary cosmic rays. Iron points are slightly shifted to the right to avoid overlapping with the data points. The total uncertainties in the MC simulations are given by the vertical bars, while the boxes give the systematic uncertainties of the data and the vertical bars the statistical ones.

Measured muon multiplicity distribution compared with simulations from CORSIKA Monte Carlo generator using QGSJET-II-04 (top), SIBYLL 2.3 (middle), and EPOS-LHC (bottom) as hadronic interaction models for proton and iron primary cosmic rays. Iron points are slightly shifted to the right to avoid overlapping with the data points. The total uncertainties in the MC simulations are given by the vertical bars, while the boxes give the systematic uncertainties of the data and the vertical bars the statistical ones.

Measured muon multiplicity distribution compared with simulations from CORSIKA Monte Carlo generator using QGSJET-II-04 (top), SIBYLL 2.3 (middle), and EPOS-LHC (bottom) as hadronic interaction models for proton and iron primary cosmic rays. Iron points are slightly shifted to the right to avoid overlapping with the data points. The total uncertainties in the MC simulations are given by the vertical bars, while the boxes give the systematic uncertainties of the data and the vertical bars the statistical ones.

Measured muon multiplicity distribution compared with simulations from CORSIKA Monte Carlo generator using QGSJET-II-04 (top), SIBYLL 2.3 (middle), and EPOS-LHC (bottom) as hadronic interaction models for proton and iron primary cosmic rays. Iron points are slightly shifted to the right to avoid overlapping with the data points. The total uncertainties in the MC simulations are given by the vertical bars, while the boxes give the systematic uncertainties of the data and the vertical bars the statistical ones.

Measured muon multiplicity distribution compared with simulations from CORSIKA Monte Carlo generator using QGSJET-II-04 (top), SIBYLL 2.3 (middle), and EPOS-LHC (bottom) as hadronic interaction models for proton and iron primary cosmic rays. Iron points are slightly shifted to the right to avoid overlapping with the data points. The total uncertainties in the MC simulations are given by the vertical bars, while the boxes give the systematic uncertainties of the data and the vertical bars the statistical ones.

Ratio between the number of events obtained with the Monte Carlo simulation (QGSJET-II-04, SIBYLL 2.3, and EPOS-LHC) with respect to the data for the muon multiplicity distributions. The sky blue line represents unity.

Ratio between the number of events obtained with the Monte Carlo simulation (QGSJET-II-04, SIBYLL 2.3, and EPOS-LHC) with respect to the data for the muon multiplicity distributions. The sky blue line represents unity.

Ratio between the number of events obtained with the Monte Carlo simulation (QGSJET-II-04, SIBYLL 2.3, and EPOS-LHC) with respect to the data for the muon multiplicity distributions. The sky blue line represents unity.

Ratio between the number of events obtained with the Monte Carlo simulation (QGSJET-II-04, SIBYLL 2.3, and EPOS-LHC) with respect to the data for the muon multiplicity distributions. The sky blue line represents unity.

Ratio between the number of events obtained with the Monte Carlo simulation (QGSJET-II-04, SIBYLL 2.3, and EPOS-LHC) with respect to the data for the muon multiplicity distributions. The sky blue line represents unity.

Ratio between the number of events obtained with the Monte Carlo simulation (QGSJET-II-04, SIBYLL 2.3, and EPOS-LHC) with respect to the data for the muon multiplicity distributions. The sky blue line represents unity.

Data selection efficiency as a function of nuclear recoil energy

Data points used in analysis in log_10(S2)-S1 space

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 $|Q| = 2e$.

Observed and expected 68% and 95% confidence intervals on the Wilson coefficients associated with the EFT dimension-8 operators.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{HW} and f_{M0}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{HW} and c_{Hbox}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{Hl3} and c_{Hq3}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{HW} and f_{T0}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{HW} and f_{S0}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{HW} and c_{HWB}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{Hq1} and c_{Hq3}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{Hbox} and f_{S0}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{W} and c_{HW}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{W} and f_{T0}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{W} and f_{M0}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{W} and c_{Hbox}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{Hbox} and c_{HDD}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{HW} and c_{HDD}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{W} and f_{S0}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{Hbox} and f_{T0}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{HWB} and c_{Hbox}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{Hl3} and c_{Hq1}.

Observed (black) and expected (red) 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) CL contours for the negative logarithm of 2D likelihood as functions of the reported dim-6 bosonic (or mixed) Wilson coefficient pairs, specifically for c_{Hbox} and f_{M0}.

Expected and observed $95\%$ CL limits on the absolute value of the up-type quark coupling parameter $|\zeta_\mathrm{u}|$ for masses of the $A$ boson ranging from $20$ to $90\,\mathrm{GeV}$.

Observed $p_0$ values for the fits on the production cross-section for $gg\rightarrow A$ times the branching ratio for $A$ decaying into two $\tau$-leptons for $A$ boson masses from $20$ to $90\,\mathrm{GeV}$. For the fit on the up-type quark coupling parameter the $p_0$ values agree up to a precision of $O(10^{-5})$.

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.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH3 at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 and ISR starting scale SpaceShower:pT0Ref = 1 GeV at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH3 and ISR starting scale SudakovCommon:pTmin=0.7 GeV at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 62 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 200 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1800 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1960 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 2760 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the CMS measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the LHCb measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 62 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 200 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1800 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1960 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 2760 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the CMS measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the LHCb measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 62 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 200 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1800 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1960 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 2760 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the CMS measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the LHCb measurement.

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.