Expected 2-D likelihood scan of the signal strength $\mu_{\tau\tau}$ versus the $CP$-mixing angle $\phi_{\tau}$.

Free-floating parameters in the measurement.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production for $B\bar{B}$ in the singlet model.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production for $T\bar{T}$ in the doublet model.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production, considereing both $T\bar{T}$ and $B\bar{B}$, in the $(T,B)$ doublet model.

Expected 95% CL lower limits on the vector-like top quark mass as a function of the branching ratios into $Wb$ and $Ht$.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on the vector-like top quark mass as a function of the branching ratios into $Wb$ and $Ht$.

Expected 95% CL lower limits on the vector-like bottom quark mass as a function of the branching ratios into $Hb$ and $Wt$.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on the vector-like top quark mass as a function of the branching ratios into $Hb$ and $Wt$.

Mass dependence of the mid-rapidity $v_1$ slope, $dv_1/dy$, for $\Lambda$, $^{3}_{\Lambda}$H and $^{4}_{\Lambda}$H from the $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV 5-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented by vertical lines and square brackets, respectively. The slopes of $p$, $d$, $t$, $^3$He and $^4$He from the same collisions are shown as black circles. The blue and dashed green lines are the results of a linear fit to the measured light nuclei and hypernuclei $v_1$ slopes, respectively. For comparison, calculations of transport models plus coalescence afterburner are shown as gold and red bars from JAM model, and blue bars from UrQMD model.

Mass dependence of the mid-rapidity $v_1$ slope, $dv_1/dy$, for $\Lambda$, $^{3}_{\Lambda}$H and $^{4}_{\Lambda}$H from the $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV 5-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented by vertical lines and square brackets, respectively. The slopes of $p$, $d$, $t$, $^3$He and $^4$He from the same collisions are shown as black circles. The blue and dashed green lines are the results of a linear fit to the measured light nuclei and hypernuclei $v_1$ slopes, respectively. For comparison, calculations of transport models plus coalescence afterburner are shown as gold and red bars from JAM model, and blue bars from UrQMD model.

Mass dependence of the mid-rapidity $v_1$ slope, $dv_1/dy$, for $\Lambda$, $^{3}_{\Lambda}$H and $^{4}_{\Lambda}$H from the $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV 5-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented by vertical lines and square brackets, respectively. The slopes of $p$, $d$, $t$, $^3$He and $^4$He from the same collisions are shown as black circles. The blue and dashed green lines are the results of a linear fit to the measured light nuclei and hypernuclei $v_1$ slopes, respectively. For comparison, calculations of transport models plus coalescence afterburner are shown as gold and red bars from JAM model, and blue bars from UrQMD model.

Mass dependence of the mid-rapidity $v_1$ slope, $dv_1/dy$, for $\Lambda$, $^{3}_{\Lambda}$H and $^{4}_{\Lambda}$H from the $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV 5-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented by vertical lines and square brackets, respectively. The slopes of $p$, $d$, $t$, $^3$He and $^4$He from the same collisions are shown as black circles. The blue and dashed green lines are the results of a linear fit to the measured light nuclei and hypernuclei $v_1$ slopes, respectively. For comparison, calculations of transport models plus coalescence afterburner are shown as gold and red bars from JAM model, and blue bars from UrQMD model.

Mass dependence of the mid-rapidity $v_1$ slope, $dv_1/dy$, for $\Lambda$, $^{3}_{\Lambda}$H and $^{4}_{\Lambda}$H from the $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV 5-40% mid-central Au+Au collisions. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented by vertical lines and square brackets, respectively. The slopes of $p$, $d$, $t$, $^3$He and $^4$He from the same collisions are shown as black circles. The blue and dashed green lines are the results of a linear fit to the measured light nuclei and hypernuclei $v_1$ slopes, respectively. For comparison, calculations of transport models plus coalescence afterburner are shown as gold and red bars from JAM model, and blue bars from UrQMD model.

Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the dilepton transverse momentum $p^{ll}_{\mathrm{T}}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).

Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the the four-body transverse momentum $p^{ll\gamma\gamma}_{\mathrm{T}}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).

Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the diphoton invariant mass $m_{\gamma\gamma}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).

Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the four-body invariant mass $m_{ll\gamma\gamma}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).

Expected and observed $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameters $f_{T,j}/\Lambda^{4}$ of transverse dimension-8 operators. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level. No unitarity constraints are applied.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,8}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,0}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,1}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,2}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,5}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,6}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,7}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,9}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{W-tagged}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b,E_{\mathrm{T}^{\mathrm{miss}}}}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $N_{\mathrm{W-tagged}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the hadronic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the leptonic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the leptonic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 0L regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 1L leptonic top regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 1L hadronic top regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Comparison of the inclusive, mode-coupled and linear higher-order flow harmonics $v_4$ for Au+Au collisions at 54.4 GeV.

Comparison of the inclusive, mode-coupled and linear higher-order flow harmonics $v_5$ for Au+Au collisions at 54.4 GeV.

Comparison of the inclusive, mode-coupled and linear higher-order flow harmonics $v_4$ for Au+Au collisions at 39.0 GeV.

Comparison of the inclusive, mode-coupled and linear higher-order flow harmonics $v_4$ for Au+Au collisions at 27.0 GeV.

Comparison of the $\chi_{4,22}$ and $\rho_{4,22}$ for Au+Au collisions at 54.4 GeV.

Comparison of the $\chi_{3,23}$ and $\rho_{5,23}$ for Au+Au collisions at 54.4 GeV.

Comparison of the $\chi_{4,22}$ and $\rho_{4,22}$ for Au+Au collisions at 39.0 GeV.

Comparison of the $\chi_{4,22}$ and $\rho_{4,22}$ for Au+Au collisions at 27.0 GeV.

Comparison of the $NSC(2,3)$ and $NSC(2,4)$ for Au+Au collisions at 54.4 GeV.

Comparison of the $NSC(2,3)$ and $NSC(2,4)$ for Au+Au collisions at 27.0 GeV.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-0L-M1. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-0L-M2. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-0L-M2. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-0L-C. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-0L-C. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-1L-B. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-1L-B. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-1L-M1. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-1L-M1. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-1L-M2. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-1L-M2. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-1L-C. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-1L-C. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gbb-B. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gbb-B. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gbb-M. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gbb-M. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gbb-C. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gbb-C. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtb-B. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtb-B. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtb-M. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtb-M. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtb-C. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtb-C. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-2100-1. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-2100-1. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-1800-1. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-1800-1. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-2300-1200. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-2300-1200. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-1900-1400. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gtt-1900-1400. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gbb-2800-1400. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gbb-2800-1400. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gbb-2300-1000. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gbb-2300-1000. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gbb-2100-1600. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gbb-2100-1600. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gbb-2000-1800. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

A summary of the uncertainties in the background estimates for SR-Gbb-2000-1800. The individual experimental and theoretical uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated and are combined by adding in quadrature.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_0L_B in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_0L_B in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_0L_M1 in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_0L_M1 in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_0L_M2 in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_0L_M2 in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_0L_C in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_0L_C in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_1L_B in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_1L_B in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_1L_M1 in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_1L_M1 in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_1L_M2 in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_1L_M2 in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_1L_C in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_1L_C in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gbb_B in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gbb_B in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gbb_M in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gbb_M in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gbb_C in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gbb_C in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtb_B in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtb_B in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtb_M in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtb_M in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtb_C in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtb_C in the CC analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_2100_1 in the NN analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_2100_1 in the NN analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_1800_1 in the NN analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_1800_1 in the NN analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_2300_1200 in the NN analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_2300_1200 in the NN analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_1900_1400 in the NN analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gtt_1900_1400 in the NN analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gbb_2800_1400 in the NN analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gbb_2800_1400 in the NN analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gbb_2300_1000 in the NN analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gbb_2300_1000 in the NN analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gbb_2100_1600 in the NN analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gbb_2100_1600 in the NN analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gbb_2000_1800 in the NN analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Results of the background-only fit extrapolated to SR_Gbb_2000_1800 in the NN analysis, for both the total expected background yields and the main contributing background processes. The quoted uncertainties include both experimental and theoretical systematics. The data in the SRs are not included in the fit. The background category $t\bar{t}+X$ includes $t\bar{t} W/Z$, $t\bar{t} H$ and $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$ events. The row ``Pre-fit background'' provides the total background prediction when the $t\bar{t}$ and $Z+$jets normalisations are obtained from theoretical calculation, taking into account the kinematic weights described in Section 5.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the NN analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed (left) 95\%~CL exclusion limits on the gluino mass as a function of BR$(\tilde{g} \to b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (vertical) and BR$(\tilde{g} \to t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (horizontal) for Gtb models with $m(\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}) = 1$~GeV, obtained from the CC analysis.

Observed (left) 95\%~CL exclusion limits on the gluino mass as a function of BR$(\tilde{g} \to b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (vertical) and BR$(\tilde{g} \to t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (horizontal) for Gtb models with $m(\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}) = 1$~GeV, obtained from the CC analysis.

Expected (right) 95\%~CL exclusion limits on the gluino mass as a function of BR$(\tilde{g} \to b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (vertical) and BR$(\tilde{g} \to t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (horizontal) for Gtb models with $m(\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}) = 1$~GeV, obtained from the CC analysis.

Expected (right) 95\%~CL exclusion limits on the gluino mass as a function of BR$(\tilde{g} \to b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (vertical) and BR$(\tilde{g} \to t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (horizontal) for Gtb models with $m(\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}) = 1$~GeV, obtained from the CC analysis.

Observed (left) 95\%~CL exclusion limits on the gluino mass as a function of BR$(\tilde{g} \to b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (vertical) and BR$(\tilde{g} \to t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (horizontal) for Gtb models with $m(\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}) = 600$~GeV, obtained from the CC analysis.

Observed (left) 95\%~CL exclusion limits on the gluino mass as a function of BR$(\tilde{g} \to b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (vertical) and BR$(\tilde{g} \to t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (horizontal) for Gtb models with $m(\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}) = 600$~GeV, obtained from the CC analysis.

Expected (right) 95\%~CL exclusion limits on the gluino mass as a function of BR$(\tilde{g} \to b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (vertical) and BR$(\tilde{g} \to t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (horizontal) for Gtb models with $m(\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}) = 600$~GeV, obtained from the CC analysis.

Expected (right) 95\%~CL exclusion limits on the gluino mass as a function of BR$(\tilde{g} \to b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (vertical) and BR$(\tilde{g} \to t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (horizontal) for Gtb models with $m(\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}) = 600$~GeV, obtained from the CC analysis.

Observed (left) 95\%~CL exclusion limits on the gluino mass as a function of BR$(\tilde{g} \to b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (vertical) and BR$(\tilde{g} \to t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (horizontal) for Gtb models with $m(\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}) = 1$~TeV, obtained from the CC analysis.

Observed (left) 95\%~CL exclusion limits on the gluino mass as a function of BR$(\tilde{g} \to b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (vertical) and BR$(\tilde{g} \to t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (horizontal) for Gtb models with $m(\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}) = 1$~TeV, obtained from the CC analysis.

Expected (right) 95\%~CL exclusion limits on the gluino mass as a function of BR$(\tilde{g} \to b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (vertical) and BR$(\tilde{g} \to t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (horizontal) for Gtb models with $m(\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}) = 1$~TeV, obtained from the CC analysis.

Expected (right) 95\%~CL exclusion limits on the gluino mass as a function of BR$(\tilde{g} \to b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (vertical) and BR$(\tilde{g} \to t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}$) (horizontal) for Gtb models with $m(\tilde\chi^{0}_{1}) = 1$~TeV, obtained from the CC analysis.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Observed exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Expected exclusion limit in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb models obtained from the CC analysis. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm 1 \sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Upper limit at 95\% CL on the cross-section times branching ratio (fb) in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb (right) models obtained from the CC analysis. The numbers give the observed 95\% CL upper limit on the cross section in fb, with the label colour matching the associated best-expected region. Only a lower limit on the excluded cross section (>0.7 fb) is given at some points due to the very small number events expected and observed in the chosen SR. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background theoretical uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Upper limit at 95\% CL on the cross-section times branching ratio (fb) in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb (right) models obtained from the CC analysis. The numbers give the observed 95\% CL upper limit on the cross section in fb, with the label colour matching the associated best-expected region. Only a lower limit on the excluded cross section (>0.7 fb) is given at some points due to the very small number events expected and observed in the chosen SR. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background theoretical uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Upper limit at 95\% CL on the cross-section times branching ratio (fb) in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb (right) models obtained from the NN analysis. The numbers give the observed 95\% CL upper limit on the cross section in fb, with the label colour matching the associated best-expected region. Only a lower limit on the excluded cross section (>0.7 fb) is given at some points due to the very small number events expected and observed in the chosen SR. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background theoretical uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Upper limit at 95\% CL on the cross-section times branching ratio (fb) in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gbb (right) models obtained from the NN analysis. The numbers give the observed 95\% CL upper limit on the cross section in fb, with the label colour matching the associated best-expected region. Only a lower limit on the excluded cross section (>0.7 fb) is given at some points due to the very small number events expected and observed in the chosen SR. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background theoretical uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Upper limit at 95\% CL on the cross-section times branching ratio (fb) in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt (left) models obtained from the CC analysis. The numbers give the observed 95\% CL upper limit on the cross section in fb, with the label colour matching the associated best-expected region. Only a lower limit on the excluded cross section (>0.7 fb) is given at some points due to the very small number events expected and observed in the chosen SR. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background theoretical uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Upper limit at 95\% CL on the cross-section times branching ratio (fb) in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt (left) models obtained from the CC analysis. The numbers give the observed 95\% CL upper limit on the cross section in fb, with the label colour matching the associated best-expected region. Only a lower limit on the excluded cross section (>0.7 fb) is given at some points due to the very small number events expected and observed in the chosen SR. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background theoretical uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Upper limit at 95\% CL on the cross-section times branching ratio (fb) in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt (left) models obtained from the NN analysis. The numbers give the observed 95\% CL upper limit on the cross section in fb, with the label colour matching the associated best-expected region. Only a lower limit on the excluded cross section (>0.7 fb) is given at some points due to the very small number events expected and observed in the chosen SR. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background theoretical uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Upper limit at 95\% CL on the cross-section times branching ratio (fb) in the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane for the Gtt (left) models obtained from the NN analysis. The numbers give the observed 95\% CL upper limit on the cross section in fb, with the label colour matching the associated best-expected region. Only a lower limit on the excluded cross section (>0.7 fb) is given at some points due to the very small number events expected and observed in the chosen SR. The dashed and solid bold lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively. The shaded bands around the expected limits show the impact of the experimental and background theoretical uncertainties. The dotted lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of its theoretical uncertainty.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-0L-B and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-0L-B and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-0L-B and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-0L-B and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-0L-M1 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-0L-M1 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-0L-M1 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-0L-M1 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-0L-M2 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-0L-M2 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-0L-M2 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-0L-M2 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-0L-C and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-0L-C and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-0L-C and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-0L-C and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-1L-B and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-1L-B and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-1L-B and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-1L-B and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-1L-M1 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-1L-M1 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-1L-M1 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-1L-M1 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-1L-M2 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-1L-M2 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-1L-M2 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-1L-M2 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-1L-C and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-1L-C and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-1L-C and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-1L-C and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gbb-B and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gbb-B and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gbb-B and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gbb-B and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gbb-M and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gbb-M and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gbb-M and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gbb-M and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gbb-C and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gbb-C and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gbb-C and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gbb-C and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-2100-1 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-2100-1 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-2100-1 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-2100-1 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-1800-1 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-1800-1 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-1800-1 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-1800-1 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-2300-1200 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-2300-1200 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-2300-1200 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-2300-1200 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-1900-1400 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gtt-1900-1400 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-1900-1400 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gtt-1900-1400 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gbb-2800-1400 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gbb-2800-1400 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gbb-2800-1400 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gbb-2800-1400 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gbb-2300-1000 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gbb-2300-1000 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gbb-2300-1000 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gbb-2300-1000 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gbb-2100-1600 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gbb-2100-1600 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gbb-2100-1600 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gbb-2100-1600 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gbb-2000-1800 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Acceptance for SR-Gbb-2000-1800 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gbb-2000-1800 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Efficiency for SR-Gbb-2000-1800 and the $\tilde{g}\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tilde\chi^0_1$ signal process.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-0L-B for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-0L-B for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-0L-M1 for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-0L-M1 for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-0L-M2 for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-0L-M2 for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-0L-C for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-0L-C for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-1L-B for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-1L-B for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-1L-M1 for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-1L-M1 for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-1L-M2 for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-1L-M2 for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-1L-C for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-1L-C for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gbb-B for a representative Gbb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gbb-B for a representative Gbb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gbb-M for a representative Gbb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gbb-M for a representative Gbb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gbb-C for a representative Gbb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gbb-C for a representative Gbb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtb-B for a representative Gtb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtb-B for a representative Gtb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtb-M for a representative Gtb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtb-M for a representative Gtb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtb-C for a representative Gtb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtb-C for a representative Gtb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-2100-1 for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-2100-1 for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-1800-1 for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-1800-1 for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-2300-1200 for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-2300-1200 for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-1900-1400 for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gtt-1900-1400 for a representative Gtt signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gbb-2800-1400 for a representative Gbb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gbb-2800-1400 for a representative Gbb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gbb-2300-1000 for a representative Gbb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gbb-2300-1000 for a representative Gbb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gbb-2100-1600 for a representative Gbb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gbb-2100-1600 for a representative Gbb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gbb-2000-1800 for a representative Gbb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SR-Gbb-2000-1800 for a representative Gbb signal. Signal was generated with 30000 events. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Distribution of $m(e^{\pm},\mu^{\pm})_{\mathrm{lead}}$ in the electron-muon signal region after the background-only fit.

Distribution of $m(\mu^{\pm},\mu^{\pm})_{\mathrm{lead}}$ in the muon-muon signal region after the background-only fit.

Distribution of $m(\ell^{\pm},\ell^{\prime \pm})_{\mathrm{lead}}$ in the three-lepton signal region after the background-only fit.

Event yield in the four-lepton signal region after the background-only fit.

Two-lepton signal region weighted cutflows for electron-electron channel. Data and a few representative signal samples are presented alongside the main background contributions. Yield stands for the observed yield in data and the expected yields based on $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ for the signal and background samples. Top quark and multiboson process backgrounds are merged under the 'other' category.

Two-lepton signal region weighted cutflows for electron-muon channel. Data and a few representative signal samples are presented alongside the main background contributions. Yield stands for the observed yield in data and the expected yields based on $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ for the signal and background samples. Top quark and multiboson process backgrounds are merged under the 'other' category.

Two-lepton signal region weighted cutflows for muon-muon channel. Data and a few representative signal samples are presented alongside the main background contributions. Yield stands for the observed yield in data and the expected yields based on $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ for the signal and background samples. Top quark and multiboson process backgrounds are merged under the 'other' category.

Three-lepton signal region weighted cutflow for $\ell \ell \ell$ channel. Data and a few representative signal samples are presented alongside the main background contributions. Yield stands for the observed yield in data and the expected yields based on $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ for the signal and background samples. Top quark and multiboson process backgrounds are merged under the 'other' category.

Four-lepton signal region weighted cutflow for $\ell \ell \ell \ell$ channel. Data and a few representative signal samples are presented alongside the main background contributions. Yield stands for the observed yield in data and the expected yields based on $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ for the signal and background samples. Top quark, Drell-Yan, and multiboson process backgrounds are merged under the 'other' category.

Probability of finding at least one TAR jet, where the p_T-leading TAR jet passes the m_Wcand and D₂^β=1 requirements, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=500 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1000 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1700 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected+1σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected-1σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected+2σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected-2σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) for m_Z'=0.5 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) for m_Z'=1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) for m_Z'=1.7 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) for m_Z'=2.1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=2.1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Data overlaid on SM background yields stacked in each SR and CR category after the fit to data ('Post-fit'). The yields in the SR are broken down into their contributions to the individual bins. The maximum-likelihood estimators are set to the conditional values of the CR-only fit, and propagated to SR and CRs.

Dominant sources of uncertainty for three dark Higgs scenarios after the fit to data. The uncertainties are quantified in terms of their contribution to the fitted signal uncertainty that is expressed relative to the theory prediction. Three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_χ=1.0, sinθ=0.01 and m_χ=200 GeV are considered, which are indicated using the (m_Z', m_s) format in units of GeV in the table columns.

Cumulative efficiencies in the merged category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_χ=1.0, sinθ=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_χ=200 GeV considering s→W(ℓν)W(qq) decays only.

Cumulative efficiencies in the resolved category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_χ=1.0, sinθ=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_χ=200 GeV considering s→W(ℓν)W(qq) decays only.

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={300, 350, 400, 500, 750} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={1000, 1700} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={2100, 2500, 2900, 3300} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Summary of the total uncertainty in the background prediction for each SR of the tt0L-low, tt0L-high, tt1L and tt2L analysis channels in the statistical combination. Their dominant contributions are indicated by individual lines. Individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(\phi)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Associated production of DM with both single top quarks ($tW$ and $tj$ channels) and top quark pairs is considered. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for each individual channel and their statistical combination.

Exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudoscalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(a)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Associated production of DM with both single top quarks ($tW$ and $tj$ channels) and top quark pairs is considered. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for each individual channel and their statistical combination.

$E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution in SR0X for the tt0L-low analysis. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown after the profile likelihood simultaneous fit to all tt0L-low CRs, with the hatched bands representing the total uncertainty. The category '$t\bar{t}$ (other)' represents $t\bar{t}$ events without extra jets or events with extra light-flavour jets. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines. The overflow events are included in the last bin. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the hatched area representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction and the red arrows marking data outside the vertical-axis range.

$E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution in SRWX for the tt0L-low analysis. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown after the profile likelihood simultaneous fit to all tt0L-low CRs, with the hatched bands representing the total uncertainty. The category '$t\bar{t}$ (other)' represents $t\bar{t}$ events without extra jets or events with extra light-flavour jets. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines. The overflow events are included in the last bin. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the hatched area representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction and the red arrows marking data outside the vertical-axis range.

$E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution in SRTX for the tt0L-low analysis. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown after the profile likelihood simultaneous fit to all tt0L-low CRs, with the hatched bands representing the total uncertainty. The category '$t\bar{t}$ (other)' represents $t\bar{t}$ events without extra jets or events with extra light-flavour jets. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines. The overflow events are included in the last bin. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the hatched area representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction and the red arrows marking data outside the vertical-axis range.

Exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(\phi)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Associated production of DM with both single top quarks ($tW$ and $tj$ channels) and top quark pairs is considered. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the nominal cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for the tt0L-high and tt0L-low analyses and their statistical combination.

Exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudoscalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(a)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Associated production of DM with both single top quarks ($tW$ and $tj$ channels) and top quark pairs is considered. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the nominal cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for the tt0L-high and tt0L-low analyses and their statistical combination.

Exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(\phi)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Only associated production of DM with top quark pairs is considered for this interpretation. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for each individual channel and their statistical combination.

Exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudoscalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(a)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Only associated production of DM with top quark pairs is considered for this interpretation. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for each individual channel and their statistical combination.

Exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(\phi)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Only associated production of DM with top quark pairs is considered for this interpretation. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the nominal cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for the tt0L-high and tt0L-low analyses and their statistical combination.

Exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudoscalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(a)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Only associated production of DM with top quark pairs is considered for this interpretation. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the nominal cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for the tt0L-high and tt0L-low analyses and their statistical combination.

Representative fit distribution in the different flavour leptons signal region for the tt2L analysis: each bin of such distribution, starting from the red arrow, corresponds to a single SR included in the fit. 'FNP' includes the contribution from fake/non-prompt lepton background arising from jets (mainly $\pi/K$, heavy-flavour hadron decays and photon conversion) misidentified as leptons, estimated in a purely data-driven way. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The total uncertainty in the SM expectation is represented with hatched bands and the expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines.

Signal acceptance in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$t\bar{t}$ model, defined as the number of accepted events at generator level in signal Monte Carlo simulation divided by the total number of events in the sample.

Signal acceptance in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$tW$ model, defined as the number of accepted events at generator level in signal Monte Carlo simulation divided by the total number of events in the sample.

Signal acceptance in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$tj$ model, defined as the number of accepted events at generator level in signal Monte Carlo simulation divided by the total number of events in the sample.

Signal efficiency in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$t\bar{t}$ model, defined as the number of selected reconstructed events divided by the acceptance.

Signal efficiency in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$tW$ model, defined as the number of selected reconstructed events divided by the acceptance.

Signal efficiency in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$tj$ model, defined as the number of selected reconstructed events divided by the acceptance.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 2045000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 2045000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 2045000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 400000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 400000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 400000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 120000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 120000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 120000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 100000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 100000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 100000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 169000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 169000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 169000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 140000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 140000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 140000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.

v2 ratio of 10-20%HeAu/0-10%dAu and UC pAu/0-10%dAu

v3 ratio of 10-20%HeAu/0-10%dAu and UC pAu/0-10%dAu

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy scalar resonance produced in association with a W boson decaying to a charged lepton and a neutrino.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy scalar resonance produced in association with a Z boson decaying to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy scalar resonance produced in association with a Z boson decaying to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 260 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 260 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 300 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 300 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 400 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 400 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 260 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 260 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 300 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 300 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 400 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 400 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 260 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 260 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 300 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 300 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 400 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 400 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 260 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 260 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 300 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 300 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 400 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 400 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a W boson. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a W boson. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a Z boson. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a Z boson. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of a heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a heavy scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of a heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a heavy scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of a heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a heavy scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of a heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a heavy scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of a heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a heavy scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of a heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a heavy scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of a heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a heavy scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of a heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a heavy scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for 315 GeV resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a W boson.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for 315 GeV resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a W boson.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for 400 GeV resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a W boson.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for 400 GeV resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a W boson.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for 550 GeV resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a Z boson.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for 550 GeV resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a Z boson.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for 400 GeV resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a Z boson.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for 400 GeV resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a Z boson.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for a 790 GeV narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a 300 GeV scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for a 790 GeV narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a 300 GeV scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for a 420 GeV large-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a 320 GeV scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for a 420 GeV large-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a 320 GeV scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for a 700 GeV large-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a 380 GeV scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for a 700 GeV large-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a 380 GeV scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for SM VHH production, with each Higgs boson decaying to $2b$.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for SM VHH production, with each Higgs boson decaying to $2b$.

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV (Multiplicity class 60-80%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 0-10%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 10-20%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 20-30%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 30-40%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 40-60%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 60-80%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 0-10%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 10-20%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 20-30%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 30-40%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 40-60%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 60-80%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV (Multiplicity class 0-10%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV (Multiplicity class 10-20%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV (Multiplicity class 20-30%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV (Multiplicity class 30-40%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV (Multiplicity class 40-60%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV (Multiplicity class 60-80%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV (Multiplicity class 0-10%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV (Multiplicity class 10-20%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV (Multiplicity class 20-30%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV (Multiplicity class 30-40%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV (Multiplicity class 40-60%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV (Multiplicity class 60-80%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV (Multiplicity class 0-10%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV (Multiplicity class 10-20%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV (Multiplicity class 20-30%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV (Multiplicity class 30-40%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV (Multiplicity class 40-60%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV (Multiplicity class 60-80%).

$p_{\mathrm T}$- integrated yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$p_{\mathrm T}$- integrated yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$p_{\mathrm T}$- integrated yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$p_{\mathrm T}$- integrated yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$p_{\mathrm T}$- integrated yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$p_{\mathrm T}$- integrated yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

<$p_{\mathrm T}$> of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

<$p_{\mathrm T}$> of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

<$p_{\mathrm T}$> of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

<$p_{\mathrm T}$> of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

<$p_{\mathrm T}$> of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

<$p_{\mathrm T}$> of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. $<(dN_{ch}/dy)^{1/3}>$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. $<(dN_{ch}/dy)^{1/3}>$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~11.5 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. $<(dN_{ch}/dy)^{1/3}>$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. $<(dN_{ch}/dy)^{1/3}>$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. $<(dN_{ch}/dy)^{1/3}>$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. $<(dN_{ch}/dy)^{1/3}>$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV. Total systematic error is the quadrature sum of the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors

$\frac{2\phi}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV

$\frac{2\phi}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV

$\frac{2\phi}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV

$\frac{2\phi}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV

$\frac{2\phi}{K^{+} + K^{-}}$ vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV

lower limit of hadronic phase lifetime vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV

lower limit of hadronic phase lifetime vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV

lower limit of hadronic phase lifetime vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV

lower limit of hadronic phase lifetime vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV

lower limit of hadronic phase lifetime vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$27 GeV

lower limit of hadronic phase lifetime vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$39 GeV

lower limit of hadronic phase lifetime vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$62.4 GeV

lower limit of hadronic phase lifetime vs. < Npart > in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$200 GeV

Reference multiplicity distributions obtained from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV data (black markers), Glauber model (red histogram), and unfolding approach to separate single and pileup contributions. Vertical lines represent statistical uncertainties. Single, pileup, and single+pileup collisions are shown in solid blue markers, dashed green, and dashed pink lines, respectively. The 0–5% central events and 5–60% mid-central to peripheral events are indicated by black arrows. The ratio of the single+pileup to the measured multiplicity distribution is shown in the lower panel.

Reference multiplicity distributions obtained from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV data (black markers), Glauber model (red histogram), and unfolding approach to separate single and pileup contributions. Vertical lines represent statistical uncertainties. Single, pileup, and single+pileup collisions are shown in solid blue markers, dashed green, and dashed pink lines, respectively. The 0–5% central events and 5–60% mid-central to peripheral events are indicated by black arrows. The ratio of the single+pileup to the measured multiplicity distribution is shown in the lower panel.

Proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity (black circles) from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Centrality-binned results with and without centrality bin width corrections are represented by red circles and blue squares, respectively. Vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes, from right to left: 0–5%, 5–10%, 10–20%. Data points in this figure are only corrected for detector efficiency but not for the pileup effect, which will be discussed in a later section.

Proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity (black circles) from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Centrality-binned results with and without centrality bin width corrections are represented by red circles and blue squares, respectively. Vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes, from right to left: 0–5%, 5–10%, 10–20%. Data points in this figure are only corrected for detector efficiency but not for the pileup effect, which will be discussed in a later section.

Proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity (black circles) from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Centrality-binned results with and without centrality bin width corrections are represented by red circles and blue squares, respectively. Vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes, from right to left: 0–5%, 5–10%, 10–20%. Data points in this figure are only corrected for detector efficiency but not for the pileup effect, which will be discussed in a later section.

Proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Pileup corrected and uncorrected cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity are represented by black circles and blue open squares, respectively. Red circles and blue-filled squares represent the results of centrality binned data.

Proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Pileup corrected and uncorrected cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity are represented by black circles and blue open squares, respectively. Red circles and blue-filled squares represent the results of centrality binned data.

Ratios of proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Pileup corrected and uncorrected cumulants are represented by black circles and blue open squares, respectively. Red circles and blue-filled squares represent the results of centrality binned data.

Ratios of proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Pileup corrected and uncorrected cumulants are represented by black circles and blue open squares, respectively. Red circles and blue-filled squares represent the results of centrality binned data.

UrQMD results of the proton cumulant ratios up to sixth order in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$= 3 GeV. The black circles are without VF correction while blue squares and red triangles are results with VFC which used $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from UrQMD and Glauber models, respectively. The blue crosses are calculations using UrQMD events with b $\leq$ 3 fm. The above results are applied CBWC except for the one (blue crosses) using b $\leq$3 fm events.

UrQMD results of the proton cumulant ratios up to sixth order in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$= 3 GeV. The black circles are without VF correction while blue squares and red triangles are results with VFC which used $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from UrQMD and Glauber models, respectively. The blue crosses are calculations using UrQMD events with b $\leq$ 3 fm. The above results are applied CBWC except for the one (blue crosses) using b $\leq$3 fm events.

Proton cumulants up to sixth order in $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Data without volume fluctuation correction is shown as grey open squares while data with volume fluctuation correction using $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models are shown as black circles and black open triangles, respectively. The corresponding centrality binned cumulants are shown in blue squares, red circles, and orange triangles, respectively. Similarly to Fig. 6, the vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes.

Proton cumulants up to sixth order in $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Data without volume fluctuation correction is shown as grey open squares while data with volume fluctuation correction using $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models are shown as black circles and black open triangles, respectively. The corresponding centrality binned cumulants are shown in blue squares, red circles, and orange triangles, respectively. Similarly to Fig. 6, the vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes.

Proton cumulant ratios up to sixth order in $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Data without volume fluctuation correction are shown as grey open squares while data with volume fluctuation correction using $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models are shown as black circles and black open triangles, respectively. The corresponding centrality binned cumulants are shown in blue squares, red circles, and orange triangles, respectively. Similarly to Fig. 6, the vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes.

Proton cumulant ratios up to sixth order in $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Data without volume fluctuation correction are shown as grey open squares while data with volume fluctuation correction using $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models are shown as black circles and black open triangles, respectively. The corresponding centrality binned cumulants are shown in blue squares, red circles, and orange triangles, respectively. Similarly to Fig. 6, the vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes.

UrQMD results of proton cumulant ratios up to sixth order in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes.

Experimental results on centrality dependence of cumulants (left panels) and cumulant ratios (right panels) up to sixth order of the proton multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at $N_{\rm part}$ = 3 GeV. The open squares are data without VF correction while red circles and blue triangles are results with VF correction with $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models, respectively.

Experimental results on centrality dependence of cumulants (left panels) and cumulant ratios (right panels) up to sixth order of the proton multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at $N_{\rm part}$ = 3 GeV. The open squares are data without VF correction while red circles and blue triangles are results with VF correction with $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models, respectively.

Same as Fig. 14 but for correlation function (left panels) and their normalized ratios (right panels).

Same as Fig. 14 but for correlation function (left panels) and their normalized ratios (right panels).

Cumulants and cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The transverse momentum window is $p_{\rm T}$ from $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ and the rapidity window is $−0.5<y<0$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD predictions are depicted by gold bands.

Cumulants and cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The transverse momentum window is $p_{\rm T}$ from $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ and the rapidity window is $−0.5<y<0$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD predictions are depicted by gold bands.

Same as Fig. 16 but for correlation functions and correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

Same as Fig. 16 but for correlation functions and correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

The transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. In the left column, the $p_{\rm T}$ analysis window is $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ while the rapidity window is varied in the range $y_{\rm min}<y<0$. In the right column, the rapidit$y$ analysis window is $−0.5<y<0$ while the $p_{\rm T}$ is varied in the range $0.4<p_{\rm T}<p_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$ GeV/$c$. The most central (0–5%) and peripheral (50–60%) events are depicted by black squares and blue triangles, respectively. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD simulations for the top 0–5% and 50–60% are shown by gold and blue bands, respectively.

The transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. In the left column, the $p_{\rm T}$ analysis window is $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ while the rapidity window is varied in the range $y_{\rm min}<y<0$. In the right column, the rapidit$y$ analysis window is $−0.5<y<0$ while the $p_{\rm T}$ is varied in the range $0.4<p_{\rm T}<p_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$ GeV/$c$. The most central (0–5%) and peripheral (50–60%) events are depicted by black squares and blue triangles, respectively. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD simulations for the top 0–5% and 50–60% are shown by gold and blue bands, respectively.

The transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. In the left column, the $p_{\rm T}$ analysis window is $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ while the rapidity window is varied in the range $y_{\rm min}<y<0$. In the right column, the rapidit$y$ analysis window is $−0.5<y<0$ while the $p_{\rm T}$ is varied in the range $0.4<p_{\rm T}<p_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$ GeV/$c$. The most central (0–5%) and peripheral (50–60%) events are depicted by black squares and blue triangles, respectively. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD simulations for the top 0–5% and 50–60% are shown by gold and blue bands, respectively.

The transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. In the left column, the $p_{\rm T}$ analysis window is $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ while the rapidity window is varied in the range $y_{\rm min}<y<0$. In the right column, the rapidit$y$ analysis window is $−0.5<y<0$ while the $p_{\rm T}$ is varied in the range $0.4<p_{\rm T}<p_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$ GeV/$c$. The most central (0–5%) and peripheral (50–60%) events are depicted by black squares and blue triangles, respectively. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD simulations for the top 0–5% and 50–60% are shown by gold and blue bands, respectively.

As in Fig. 18 but for transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

As in Fig. 18 but for transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

As in Fig. 18 but for transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

As in Fig. 18 but for transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

Collision energy dependence of the cumulant ratios: $C_2/C_1=\sigma/M$, $C_3/C_2=S\sigma$, and $C_4/C_2=\kappa\sigma^2$, for protons (open squares) and net protons (red circles) from top 0–5% (top panels) and 50–60% (bottom panels) Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The points for protons are shifted horizontally for clarity. The new result for protons from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions is shown as a filled square. UrQMD results with $|y|<0.5$ for protons are shown as gold bands while those for net protons are shown as green dashed lines or green bands. At 3GeV, the model results for protons (−0.5) are shown as blue crosses. UrQMD results of proton and net-proton $C_4/C_2$, see right panels, are almost totally overlapped. The open cross is the result of the model with a fixed impact parameter $b < 3$ fm. The hydrodynamic calculations, for 5% central Au+Au collisions, for protons from $|y|<0.5$ are shown as dashed red linea and the result of the 3 GeV protons from $−0.5<y<0$ is shown as an open red star.

Collision energy dependence of the cumulant ratios: $C_2/C_1=\sigma/M$, $C_3/C_2=S\sigma$, and $C_4/C_2=\kappa\sigma^2$, for protons (open squares) and net protons (red circles) from top 0–5% (top panels) and 50–60% (bottom panels) Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The points for protons are shifted horizontally for clarity. The new result for protons from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions is shown as a filled square. UrQMD results with $|y|<0.5$ for protons are shown as gold bands while those for net protons are shown as green dashed lines or green bands. At 3GeV, the model results for protons (−0.5) are shown as blue crosses. UrQMD results of proton and net-proton $C_4/C_2$, see right panels, are almost totally overlapped. The open cross is the result of the model with a fixed impact parameter $b < 3$ fm. The hydrodynamic calculations, for 5% central Au+Au collisions, for protons from $|y|<0.5$ are shown as dashed red linea and the result of the 3 GeV protons from $−0.5<y<0$ is shown as an open red star.

Collision energy dependence of the cumulant ratios: $C_2/C_1=\sigma/M$, $C_3/C_2=S\sigma$, and $C_4/C_2=\kappa\sigma^2$, for protons (open squares) and net protons (red circles) from top 0–5% (top panels) and 50–60% (bottom panels) Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The points for protons are shifted horizontally for clarity. The new result for protons from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions is shown as a filled square. UrQMD results with $|y|<0.5$ for protons are shown as gold bands while those for net protons are shown as green dashed lines or green bands. At 3GeV, the model results for protons (−0.5) are shown as blue crosses. UrQMD results of proton and net-proton $C_4/C_2$, see right panels, are almost totally overlapped. The open cross is the result of the model with a fixed impact parameter $b < 3$ fm. The hydrodynamic calculations, for 5% central Au+Au collisions, for protons from $|y|<0.5$ are shown as dashed red linea and the result of the 3 GeV protons from $−0.5<y<0$ is shown as an open red star.

Collision energy dependence of the cumulant ratios: $C_2/C_1=\sigma/M$, $C_3/C_2=S\sigma$, and $C_4/C_2=\kappa\sigma^2$, for protons (open squares) and net protons (red circles) from top 0–5% (top panels) and 50–60% (bottom panels) Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The points for protons are shifted horizontally for clarity. The new result for protons from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions is shown as a filled square. UrQMD results with $|y|<0.5$ for protons are shown as gold bands while those for net protons are shown as green dashed lines or green bands. At 3GeV, the model results for protons (−0.5) are shown as blue crosses. UrQMD results of proton and net-proton $C_4/C_2$, see right panels, are almost totally overlapped. The open cross is the result of the model with a fixed impact parameter $b < 3$ fm. The hydrodynamic calculations, for 5% central Au+Au collisions, for protons from $|y|<0.5$ are shown as dashed red linea and the result of the 3 GeV protons from $−0.5<y<0$ is shown as an open red star.

Collision energy dependence of the cumulant ratios: $C_2/C_1=\sigma/M$, $C_3/C_2=S\sigma$, and $C_4/C_2=\kappa\sigma^2$, for protons (open squares) and net protons (red circles) from top 0–5% (top panels) and 50–60% (bottom panels) Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The points for protons are shifted horizontally for clarity. The new result for protons from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions is shown as a filled square. UrQMD results with $|y|<0.5$ for protons are shown as gold bands while those for net protons are shown as green dashed lines or green bands. At 3GeV, the model results for protons (−0.5) are shown as blue crosses. UrQMD results of proton and net-proton $C_4/C_2$, see right panels, are almost totally overlapped. The open cross is the result of the model with a fixed impact parameter $b < 3$ fm. The hydrodynamic calculations, for 5% central Au+Au collisions, for protons from $|y|<0.5$ are shown as dashed red linea and the result of the 3 GeV protons from $−0.5<y<0$ is shown as an open red star.

Collision energy dependence of the cumulant ratios: $C_2/C_1=\sigma/M$, $C_3/C_2=S\sigma$, and $C_4/C_2=\kappa\sigma^2$, for protons (open squares) and net protons (red circles) from top 0–5% (top panels) and 50–60% (bottom panels) Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The points for protons are shifted horizontally for clarity. The new result for protons from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions is shown as a filled square. UrQMD results with $|y|<0.5$ for protons are shown as gold bands while those for net protons are shown as green dashed lines or green bands. At 3GeV, the model results for protons (−0.5) are shown as blue crosses. UrQMD results of proton and net-proton $C_4/C_2$, see right panels, are almost totally overlapped. The open cross is the result of the model with a fixed impact parameter $b < 3$ fm. The hydrodynamic calculations, for 5% central Au+Au collisions, for protons from $|y|<0.5$ are shown as dashed red linea and the result of the 3 GeV protons from $−0.5<y<0$ is shown as an open red star.

Naming convention for the observables at different levels of the analysis. At the background-subtracted level the contributions of tracks from pile-up collisions and tracks from secondary vertices are subtracted. At the corrected level the tracking-efficiency correction (TEC) is applied. The observables at particle level are the analysis results.

The total pile-up scale-factor relative uncertainty parameterised in $\mu$ and $n_\text{trk,out}$ and expressed in percent.

The $\chi^2$ and NDF for measured normalised differential cross-sections obtained by comparing the different predictions with the unfolded data. Global($n_\text{ch},\Sigma_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$) denotes the scenario in which the covariance matrix is built including the correlations of systematic uncertainties between the two observables $n_{\text{ch}}$ and $\Sigma_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$

Normalised differential cross-section as a function of $n_\text{ch}$.

Normalised differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$.

Normalised double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$.

Normalised double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$.

Normalised double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$.

Normalised double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$.

Normalised double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n\text{ch}$ in $ n_\text{ch} \geq 80$.

The $\chi^2$ and NDF for the measured normalised differential cross-sections obtained by comparing the different predictions with the unfolded data. The values corresponding to the `Total' scenario are given. In this scenario, only uncertainties described in Section 8 of the paper are included, while the extra theory uncertainties defined in Section 9 are omitted.

The $\chi^2$ and NDF for the measured normalised differential cross-sections obtained by comparing the different predictions with the unfolded data. The values corresponding to the `De-correlate modelling' scenario are given. This scenario uses the detector covariance matrix, and adding modelling uncertainties, scale variations in the matrix element and parton shower as well as the $h_{\text{damp}}$ variation only to the diagonal elements of the covariance matrix.

The $\chi^2$ and NDF for measured absolute differential cross-sections obtained by comparing the different predictions with the unfolded data. Global($n_\text{ch},\Sigma_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$) denotes the scenario in which the covariance matrix is built including the correlations of systematic uncertainties between the two observables $n_{\text{ch}}$ and $\Sigma_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$

The $\chi^2$ and NDF for the measured absolute differential cross-sections obtained by comparing the different predictions with the unfolded data. The values corresponding to the `Total' scenario are given. In this scenario, only uncertainties described in Section 8 of the paper are included, while the extra theory uncertainties defined in Section 9 are omitted.

The $\chi^2$ and NDF for the measured normalised differential cross-sections obtained by comparing the different predictions with the unfolded data. The values corresponding to the `De-correlate modelling' scenario are given. This scenario uses the detector covariance matrix, and adding modelling uncertainties, scale variations in the matrix element and parton shower as well as the $h_{\text{damp}}$ variation only to the diagonal elements of the covariance matrix.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $n_\text{ch}$.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n\text{ch}$ in $ n_\text{ch} \geq 80$.

Covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $n_\text{ch}$ vs. $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $n_\text{ch}$ vs. $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $n_\text{ch}$ vs. $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $n_\text{ch}$ vs. $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Invariant yields of tritons at 19.6 GeV, all centralities. The first uncertainty is statistical uncertainty, the second is systematic uncertainty.

Invariant yields of tritons at 27 GeV, all centralities. The first uncertainty is statistical uncertainty, the second is systematic uncertainty.

Invariant yields of tritons at 39 GeV, all centralities. The first uncertainty is statistical uncertainty, the second is systematic uncertainty.

Invariant yields of tritons at 54.4 GeV, all centralities. The first uncertainty is statistical uncertainty, the second is systematic uncertainty.

Invariant yields of tritons at 62.4 GeV, all centralities. The first uncertainty is statistical uncertainty, the second is systematic uncertainty.

Invariant yields of tritons at 200 GeV, all centralities. The first uncertainty is statistical uncertainty, the second is systematic uncertainty.

Triton integral dN/dy in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 54.4, 62.4, 200 GeV, all centrality

Invariant yields of inclusive proton at 54.4 GeV with DCA < 3 cm, all centralities

Inclusive proton integral dN/dy in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 54.4 GeV, with DCA < 3 cm.

Invariant yields of deuteron at 54.4 GeV, all centralities

Deuteron integral dN/dy in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 54.4 GeV, all centrality

Particle yield ratios at 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 54.4, 62.4, and 200 GeV, 0%-10% centrality

Charged-particle multiplicity (dN_{ch}/d\eta) of light nuclei yield ratio, all centralities

Collision energy, centrality, and p_{T} dependence of light nuclei yield, 0%-10% and 40%-80% centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV at 0-60% centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 7.7 GeV at 60-80% centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 11.5 GeV, all centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 14.5 GeV

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 19.6 GeV

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 27 GeV

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 39 GeV

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 54.4 GeV

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 62.4 GeV

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 7.7 GeV at 0-60% centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 7.7 GeV at 60-80% centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 11.5 GeV at 0-40% centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 11.5 GeV at 40-80% centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 14.5 GeV, all centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 19.6 GeV, all centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 27 GeV, all centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 39 GeV, all centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 62.4 GeV, all centrality

Integral yields dN/dy of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 54.4, 200, all centrality

Integral yields dN/dy of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 54.4, 200, all centrality

Integral yields dN/dy of primordial protons and antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 62.4, all centrality

Proton feed-down fraction in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 54.4, 200, all centrality

Antiproton weak decay feed-down fraction in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, all centrality

Protons and antiprotons weak decay feed-down fraction in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 62.4, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 54.4 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 54.4 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 54.4 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, all centrality

This dataset corresponds to Figure 2, the v2 ratio value estimated between epd (\Psi_1) and tpc (\Psi_2) in the paper

This dataset corresponds to Figure 2, the v2 ratio value estimated between epd (\Psi_1) and epd (\Psi_2) in the paper

This dataset corresponds to Figure 3, the \Delta\gamma_{112}multiply N_{part} value estimated by tpc (\Psi_2) in the paper

This dataset corresponds to Figure 3, the \Delta\gamma_{112}multiply N_{part} value estimated by epd (\Psi_2) in the paper

This dataset corresponds to Figure 3, the \Delta\gamma_{1111}multiply N_{part} value estimated by epd (\Psi_1) in the paper

This dataset corresponds to Figure 3, the ratio between \Delta\gamma_{1111} (by epd \Psi_1) and \Delta\gamma(112) (by tpc \Psi_2) in the paper

This dataset corresponds to Figure 3, the ratio between \Delta\gamma_{1111} (by epd \Psi_1) and \Delta\gamma(112) (by epd \Psi_2) in the paper

This dataset corresponds to Figure 4, the \Delta\gamma_{112}multiply N_{part} and scaled by v_2 estimated by tpc (\Psi_2) in the paper

This dataset corresponds to Figure 4, the \Delta\gamma_{112}multiply N_{part} and scaled by v_2 estimated by epd (\Psi_2) in the paper

This dataset corresponds to Figure 4, the \Delta\gamma_{1111}multiply N_{part} and scaled by v_2 estimated by epd (\Psi_1) in the paper

This dataset corresponds to Figure 4, the ratio between \Delta\gamma_{1111} scaled by v_{211} (by epd \Psi_1) and \Delta\gamma(112) scaled by v_2 (by tpc \Psi_2) in the paper

This dataset corresponds to Figure 4, the ratio between \Delta\gamma_{1111} scaled by v_{211} (by epd \Psi_1) and \Delta\gamma(112) scaled by v_2 (by epd \Psi_2) in the paper

Correlation matrix for the individual sources of systematic uncertainty considered in the analysis, for the combined opposite sign (OS) and same sign (SS) binned-template profile likelihood fit to data. The OS or SS refers to the charge signs of the primary lepton and the soft muon. The gamma parameters are NPs used to describe the effect of the limited statistics of the samples.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded inclusive leptonic asymmetry. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ < 500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [500,750] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [750,1000] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [1000,1500] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ > 1500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ < 30 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [30,120] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > 120 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.