95% CL upper limits as a function of (left) cτ_{π_d} and (right) M_φ. The upper plots show the expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) for m_{π_d} = 20 GeV: (a) using M_φ = 1.6 TeV and (b) using cτ_{π_d} = 20 mm. The lower plots show a comparison of the observed limits for all three dark pion masses: (c) using M_φ = 1.4 TeV, and (d) using cτ_{π_d} = 1 mm. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

95% CL upper limits as a function of (left) cτ_{π_d} and (right) M_φ. The upper plots show the expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) for m_{π_d} = 20 GeV: (a) using M_φ = 1.6 TeV and (b) using cτ_{π_d} = 20 mm. The lower plots show a comparison of the observed limits for all three dark pion masses: (c) using M_φ = 1.4 TeV, and (d) using cτ_{π_d} = 1 mm. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

95% CL exclusion contours as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}. The expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. A comparison of the observed limits is given in (d) for each of the three dark pion masses.

95% CL exclusion contours as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}. The expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. A comparison of the observed limits is given in (d) for each of the three dark pion masses.

95% CL exclusion contours as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}. The expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. A comparison of the observed limits is given in (d) for each of the three dark pion masses.

95% CL exclusion contours as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}. The expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. A comparison of the observed limits is given in (d) for each of the three dark pion masses.

Comparison of the 95% CL exclusion contours between ATLAS and CMS  for (a) models with m_{π_d} = 10 GeV and (b) models with m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. The expected and observed limits are shown for ATLAS, while only the observed limits in both the model agnostic and GNN cases are included for CMS. The expected limits from the CMS result are omitted, but are, in general, very close to the CMS observed limits.

Comparison of the 95% CL exclusion contours between ATLAS and CMS  for (a) models with m_{π_d} = 10 GeV and (b) models with m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. The expected and observed limits are shown for ATLAS, while only the observed limits in both the model agnostic and GNN cases are included for CMS. The expected limits from the CMS result are omitted, but are, in general, very close to the CMS observed limits.

Normalized minPTF distribution in data, with three selected signal samples for comparison

95% CL exclusion contours as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d} for the Cut-Based analysis. The expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. A comparison of the observed limits is given in (d) for each of the three dark pion masses.

95% CL exclusion contours as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d} for the Cut-Based analysis. The expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. A comparison of the observed limits is given in (d) for each of the three dark pion masses.

95% CL exclusion contours as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d} for the Cut-Based analysis. The expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. A comparison of the observed limits is given in (d) for each of the three dark pion masses.

95% CL exclusion contours as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d} for the Cut-Based analysis. The expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. A comparison of the observed limits is given in (d) for each of the three dark pion masses.

Comparison of observed and expected 95% CL limits of the Cut-Based analysis against the corresponding BDT-based analysis. Limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d} for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV.

Comparison of observed and expected 95% CL limits of the Cut-Based analysis against the corresponding BDT-based analysis. Limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d} for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV.

Comparison of observed and expected 95% CL limits of the Cut-Based analysis against the corresponding BDT-based analysis. Limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d} for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV.

Normalized event-level BDT response distribution in data, with three selected signal samples for comparison.

Normalized jet-matched displaced vertex multiplicity (N_DV) distribution in data, with three selected signal samples for comparison.

Normalized event-level BDT response distribution in data, with three selected signal samples for comparison. All three signal models have M_φ = 1.8 TeV and cτ_{π_d} = 75 mm, but different m_{π_d}.

Normalized event-level BDT response distribution in data, with three selected signal samples for comparison. All three signal models have m_{π_d} = 10 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 20 mm, but different M_φ.

Normalized event-level BDT response distribution in data, with three selected signal samples for comparison. All three signal models have m_{π_d} = 10 GeV and M_φ = 1.4 TeV, but different cτ_{π_d}.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 1000 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 500 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 300 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 150 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 75 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 20 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 5 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limit for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 2 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 1 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and M_φ = 2.2 TeV as a function of dark pion lifetime. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and M_φ = 2 TeV as a function of dark pion lifetime. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and M_φ = 1.8 TeV as a function of dark pion lifetime. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and M_φ = 1.6 TeV as a function of dark pion lifetime. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and M_φ = 1.4 TeV as a function of dark pion lifetime. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and M_φ = 1 TeV as a function of dark pion lifetime. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 20 GeV as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 20 GeV as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 20 GeV as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 20 GeV as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 20 GeV as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 20 GeV as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, M_φ = 1600 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, M_φ = 1400 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, M_φ = 1000 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, M_φ = 2200 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, M_φ = 2000 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, M_φ = 1800 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, M_φ = 1600 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, M_φ = 1400 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, M_φ = 1000 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 20 GeV, M_φ = 2200 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 20 GeV, M_φ = 2000 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 20 GeV, M_φ = 1800 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 20 GeV, M_φ = 1600 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 20 GeV, M_φ = 1400 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 20 GeV, M_φ = 1000 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, M_φ = 2200 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, M_φ = 2000 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, M_φ = 1800 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

The measured differential cross-section for $W^+$ in bins of the $p_T$ of the $W$.

Statistical correlations of angular coefficients and differential cross-section for $W^-$ as a function of $p_{T}(W)$. Included as a CSV file due to file size.

Statistical correlations of angular coefficients and differential cross-section for $W^+$ as a function of $p_{T}(W)$. Included as a CSV file due to file size.

Observed 95% $\text{CL}_\text{S}$ upper limits on the production cross-section times acceptance times branching ratio to jets, $\sigma \cdot A \cdot \text{BR}$, of Gaussian-shaped signals of 5%, 10%, and 15% width relative to their peak mass, $m_G$. Also included are the corresponding expected upper limits predicted for the case the $m_{jj}$ distribution is observed to be identical to the background prediction in each bin and the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ envelopes of outcomes expected for Poisson fluctuations around the background expectation. Limits are derived from the J100 signal region.

Observed 95% $\text{CL}_\text{S}$ upper limits on the the value of the coupling to quarks, $g_q$, of the $Z^\prime$ model as a function of the resonance mass $m_{Z^\prime}$. Also included are the corresponding expected upper limits predicted for the case the $m_{jj}$ distribution is observed to be identical to the background prediction in each bin and the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ envelopes of outcomes expected for Poisson fluctuations around the background expectation. Limits are derived from the J50 signal region.

Observed 95% $\text{CL}_\text{S}$ upper limits on the the value of the coupling to quarks, $g_q$, of the $Z^\prime$ model as a function of the resonance mass $m_{Z^\prime}$. Also included are the corresponding expected upper limits predicted for the case the $m_{jj}$ distribution is observed to be identical to the background prediction in each bin and the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ envelopes of outcomes expected for Poisson fluctuations around the background expectation. Limits are derived from the J100 signal region.

Acceptance of simulated $Z^\prime$ signal events given the analysis event selection as a function of $m_{Z^\prime}$. The solid black line corresponds to the acceptance without a lower $m_{jj}$ requirement applied, the solid blue line includes the $m_{jj} > 344$ GeV requirement of the J50 signal region, and the solid red line includes the $m_{jj} > 481$ GeV requirement of the J100 signal region.

Numbers of events in each of the two considered datasets after consecutively applying the analysis selections.

Observed 95% confidence level (CL) exclusion limits for the (a) |U_e|² and (b) |U_μ|² mixing parameters versus the HNL mass. The expected (dashed line) exclusion limits are also shown. The 1σ and 2σ uncertainty bands around the expected exclusion limit reflect uncertainties in signal and background yields.

Data and estimated background comparison in the three lepton SRs defined for the e^±e^±μ^∓ decay mode. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty of the background. These signal regions are not orthogonal by construction, and data events can be found in more than one signal region.

Data and estimated background comparison in the three lepton SRs defined for the μ^±μ^±e^∓ decay mode. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty of the background. These signal regions are not orthogonal by construction, and data events can be found in more than one signal region.

Data and estimated background comparison in the two lepton SRs defined for the μ^±μ^±e^∓ decay mode. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty of the background. These signal regions are not orthogonal by construction, and data events can be found in more than one signal region.

Data and estimated background comparison in a region enriched in WZ SM processes, defined with N_lept^signal =3, m_T >80 GeV and SC leptons with p_T > 30 GeV, in addition to the preselection defined in Section 5. Events entering the SRs defined in Section 5 are vetoed. The last bin includes overflow. The uncertainties shown with hashed bands, include only the statistical uncertainties and the full uncertainties associated with the data-driven background estimates. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields.

Identification of the three lepton signal region chosen to set the limits for the e^±e^±μ^∓ decay mode. The observed (continuous line) and expected (dashed line) exclusion limits at 95% CL are also shown.

Identification of the three lepton signal region chosen to set the limits for the μ^±μ^±e^∓ decay mode. The observed (continuous line) and expected (dashed line) exclusion limits at 95% CL are also shown.

Identification of the two lepton signal region chosen to set the limits for the μ^±μ^±e^∓ decay mode. The observed (continuous line) and expected (dashed line) exclusion limits at 95% CL are also shown. The grey boxed area highlights the regions where the fit is not converging for the observed limit, given the low statistics. While they do not yield a result independently, they are further used in a combined fit with the three lepton regions. In these fits, the signal is floated simultaneously in the two lepton and 3ℓ regions, in which case there are enough statistics to converge on a limit. In this high mass region, the two lepton region gives a minor improvement to the limits in the combined fit when compared to the 3ℓ only result.

Observed 95% confidence-level exclusion in |U_μ|² versus the HNL mass, as obtained with the two lepton and three lepton signal regions, before the combination. The expected (dashed line) exclusion limits are also shown.

Observed 95% confidence-level exclusion in |U_μ|² versus the HNL mass, as obtained with the two lepton (blue) and three lepton (magenta) signal regions, before the combination. The expected (dashed line) exclusion limits are also shown. For complexness, also the combined two lepton and three lepton limits (black) are displayed, together with the 1σ and 2σ of the median expected limit.

Observed 95% confidence-level exclusion in |U_μ|² versus the HNL mass, as obtained with the three lepton only signal regions. The expected (dashed line) exclusion limits are also shown.

Observed 95% confidence-level exclusion in |U_μ|² versus the HNL mass, as obtained with the two lepton only signal regions. The expected (dashed line) exclusion limits are also shown. The grey boxed area highlights the regions where the fit is not converging for the observed limit, given the low statistics. While they do not yield a result independently, they are further used in a combined fit with the three lepton regions. In these fits, the signal is floated simultaneously in the two lepton and 3ℓ regions, in which case there are enough statistics to converge on a limit. In this high mass region, the two lepton region gives a minor improvement to the limits in the combined fit when compared to the 3ℓ only result.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the (a) m_T(4ℓ, E_T^miss), (b) m^high(3ℓ), (c) m(Z), (d) E_T^miss, (e) p_T(Z), and (f) N_jets distribution in the (a, d) 2Z 0b, (b, e) 1Z 1b 2SFOS, and (c, f) 0Z 2SFOS region, after requiring the anomaly score to be below the 90% background rejection point. The background contributions after the likelihood fit to data ('post-fit') for the background-only hypothesis are shown as filled histograms. The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z, and tt̄H processes. The 'HF ℓ' ('LF ℓ') background component refers to processes containing one non-prompt light lepton from heavy-flavour (light-flavour) hadron decays. The ratio of the data to the background prediction ('Bkg.') is shown in the lower panel. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the tWZ production. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure. The last bin contains the overflow.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the (a) m_T(4ℓ, E_T^miss), (b) m^high(3ℓ), (c) m(Z), (d) E_T^miss, (e) p_T(Z), and (f) N_jets distribution in the (a, d) 2Z 0b, (b, e) 1Z 1b 2SFOS, and (c, f) 0Z 2SFOS region, after requiring the anomaly score to be below the 90% background rejection point. The background contributions after the likelihood fit to data ('post-fit') for the background-only hypothesis are shown as filled histograms. The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z, and tt̄H processes. The 'HF ℓ' ('LF ℓ') background component refers to processes containing one non-prompt light lepton from heavy-flavour (light-flavour) hadron decays. The ratio of the data to the background prediction ('Bkg.') is shown in the lower panel. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the tWZ production. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure. The last bin contains the overflow.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the (a) m_T(4ℓ, E_T^miss), (b) m^high(3ℓ), (c) m(Z), (d) E_T^miss, (e) p_T(Z), and (f) N_jets distribution in the (a, d) 2Z 0b, (b, e) 1Z 1b 2SFOS, and (c, f) 0Z 2SFOS region, after requiring the anomaly score to be below the 90% background rejection point. The background contributions after the likelihood fit to data ('post-fit') for the background-only hypothesis are shown as filled histograms. The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z, and tt̄H processes. The 'HF ℓ' ('LF ℓ') background component refers to processes containing one non-prompt light lepton from heavy-flavour (light-flavour) hadron decays. The ratio of the data to the background prediction ('Bkg.') is shown in the lower panel. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the tWZ production. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure. The last bin contains the overflow.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the (a) N_jets, (b) E_T^miss, (c) m(3ℓ), and (d) H_T^lep distribution in the (a) HFe CR, (b) HFμ CR, (c) LFe CR, and (d) the Wγ^*/tt̄γ^* validation region. The background contributions after the likelihood fit to data ('post-fit') for the background-only hypothesis are shown as filled histograms. The ratio of the data to the background prediction ('Bkg.') is shown in the lower panel. The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄W, tt̄Z, and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution in the 2ℓSS regions is dominated by the tt̄ and tt̄W production, and in the 3ℓ regions is dominated by the ZZ + LF production. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure. The last bin contains the overflow.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the (a) N_jets, (b) E_T^miss, (c) m(3ℓ), and (d) H_T^lep distribution in the (a) HFe CR, (b) HFμ CR, (c) LFe CR, and (d) the Wγ^*/tt̄γ^* validation region. The background contributions after the likelihood fit to data ('post-fit') for the background-only hypothesis are shown as filled histograms. The ratio of the data to the background prediction ('Bkg.') is shown in the lower panel. The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄W, tt̄Z, and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution in the 2ℓSS regions is dominated by the tt̄ and tt̄W production, and in the 3ℓ regions is dominated by the ZZ + LF production. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure. The last bin contains the overflow.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the (a) N_jets, (b) E_T^miss, (c) m(3ℓ), and (d) H_T^lep distribution in the (a) HFe CR, (b) HFμ CR, (c) LFe CR, and (d) the Wγ^*/tt̄γ^* validation region. The background contributions after the likelihood fit to data ('post-fit') for the background-only hypothesis are shown as filled histograms. The ratio of the data to the background prediction ('Bkg.') is shown in the lower panel. The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄W, tt̄Z, and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution in the 2ℓSS regions is dominated by the tt̄ and tt̄W production, and in the 3ℓ regions is dominated by the ZZ + LF production. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure. The last bin contains the overflow.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the (a) N_jets, (b) E_T^miss, (c) m(3ℓ), and (d) H_T^lep distribution in the (a) HFe CR, (b) HFμ CR, (c) LFe CR, and (d) the Wγ^*/tt̄γ^* validation region. The background contributions after the likelihood fit to data ('post-fit') for the background-only hypothesis are shown as filled histograms. The ratio of the data to the background prediction ('Bkg.') is shown in the lower panel. The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄W, tt̄Z, and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution in the 2ℓSS regions is dominated by the tt̄ and tt̄W production, and in the 3ℓ regions is dominated by the ZZ + LF production. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure. The last bin contains the overflow.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the discovery regions included in the model-independent fit, after a background-only fit to data in the five cut-based control regions and ten low-anomaly score discovery regions ('post-fit'). All signal bins are shown ('SR') together with the low-anomaly score discovery regions ('CR'). The various requirements on the anomaly score corresponding to the specified background rejection cuts (99.9/99/90/50%) are shown for all the applicable SRs and CRs. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate ('Bkg'). The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z (4ℓ only) and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Observed and expected excluded visible cross section limits, σ_vis for the model-independent regions. The various requirements on the anomaly score corresponding to the specified background rejection cuts (99.9/99/90/50%) are shown for all the applicable regions.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions, after a background-only fit to data ('post-fit'): (a) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e>μ, (b) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z ≥1b 2SFOS e>μ, (c) 4ℓ Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS μ>e, (d) 4ℓ Q=±2 0b e>μ, (e) 4ℓ Q=±2 ≥1b μ>e, and (f) the three ≥5ℓ regions: 0Z 0b μ>e, 0Z 0b e≥μ, and 0Z ≥1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate ('Bkg.'). The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z (4ℓ only) and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions, after a background-only fit to data ('post-fit'): (a) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e>μ, (b) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z ≥1b 2SFOS e>μ, (c) 4ℓ Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS μ>e, (d) 4ℓ Q=±2 0b e>μ, (e) 4ℓ Q=±2 ≥1b μ>e, and (f) the three ≥5ℓ regions: 0Z 0b μ>e, 0Z 0b e≥μ, and 0Z ≥1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate ('Bkg.'). The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z (4ℓ only) and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions, after a background-only fit to data ('post-fit'): (a) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e>μ, (b) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z ≥1b 2SFOS e>μ, (c) 4ℓ Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS μ>e, (d) 4ℓ Q=±2 0b e>μ, (e) 4ℓ Q=±2 ≥1b μ>e, and (f) the three ≥5ℓ regions: 0Z 0b μ>e, 0Z 0b e≥μ, and 0Z ≥1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate ('Bkg.'). The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z (4ℓ only) and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions, after a background-only fit to data ('post-fit'): (a) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e>μ, (b) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z ≥1b 2SFOS e>μ, (c) 4ℓ Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS μ>e, (d) 4ℓ Q=±2 0b e>μ, (e) 4ℓ Q=±2 ≥1b μ>e, and (f) the three ≥5ℓ regions: 0Z 0b μ>e, 0Z 0b e≥μ, and 0Z ≥1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate ('Bkg.'). The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z (4ℓ only) and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions, after a background-only fit to data ('post-fit'): (a) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e>μ, (b) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z ≥1b 2SFOS e>μ, (c) 4ℓ Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS μ>e, (d) 4ℓ Q=±2 0b e>μ, (e) 4ℓ Q=±2 ≥1b μ>e, and (f) the three ≥5ℓ regions: 0Z 0b μ>e, 0Z 0b e≥μ, and 0Z ≥1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate ('Bkg.'). The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z (4ℓ only) and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions, after a background-only fit to data ('post-fit'): (a) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e>μ, (b) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z ≥1b 2SFOS e>μ, (c) 4ℓ Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS μ>e, (d) 4ℓ Q=±2 0b e>μ, (e) 4ℓ Q=±2 ≥1b μ>e, and (f) the three ≥5ℓ regions: 0Z 0b μ>e, 0Z 0b e≥μ, and 0Z ≥1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate ('Bkg.'). The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z (4ℓ only) and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL for the (a) wino-like chargino and neutralino, and (b) smuon models, as a function of the masses of &chi;&#771;^&plusmn;₁ / &chi;&#771;⁰₂ and &chi;&#771;⁰₁, and &mu;_L,R and &Delta;m (&mu;_L,R, &chi;&#771;⁰₁), respectively. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS searches [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07%282021%29167">JHEP07(2021)167</a>, <a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12%282023%29081">JHEP12(2023)081</a>] are overlaid in dashed grey lines. The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL for the (a) wino-like chargino and neutralino, and (b) smuon models, as a function of the masses of &chi;&#771;^&plusmn;₁ / &chi;&#771;⁰₂ and &chi;&#771;⁰₁, and &mu;_L,R and &Delta;m (&mu;_L,R, &chi;&#771;⁰₁), respectively. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS searches [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07%282021%29167">JHEP07(2021)167</a>, <a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12%282023%29081">JHEP12(2023)081</a>] are overlaid in dashed grey lines. The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL for the (a) wino-like chargino and neutralino, and (b) smuon models, as a function of the masses of &chi;&#771;^&plusmn;₁ / &chi;&#771;⁰₂ and &chi;&#771;⁰₁, and &mu;_L,R and &Delta;m (&mu;_L,R, &chi;&#771;⁰₁), respectively. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS searches [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07%282021%29167">JHEP07(2021)167</a>, <a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12%282023%29081">JHEP12(2023)081</a>] are overlaid in dashed grey lines. The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL for the (a) wino-like chargino and neutralino, and (b) smuon models, as a function of the masses of &chi;&#771;^&plusmn;₁ / &chi;&#771;⁰₂ and &chi;&#771;⁰₁, and &mu;_L,R and &Delta;m (&mu;_L,R, &chi;&#771;⁰₁), respectively. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS searches [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07%282021%29167">JHEP07(2021)167</a>, <a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12%282023%29081">JHEP12(2023)081</a>] are overlaid in dashed grey lines. The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL for the (a) wino-like chargino and neutralino, and (b) smuon models, as a function of the masses of &chi;&#771;^&plusmn;₁ / &chi;&#771;⁰₂ and &chi;&#771;⁰₁, and &mu;_L,R and &Delta;m (&mu;_L,R, &chi;&#771;⁰₁), respectively. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS searches [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07%282021%29167">JHEP07(2021)167</a>, <a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12%282023%29081">JHEP12(2023)081</a>] are overlaid in dashed grey lines. The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL for the (a) wino-like chargino and neutralino, and (b) smuon models, as a function of the masses of &chi;&#771;^&plusmn;₁ / &chi;&#771;⁰₂ and &chi;&#771;⁰₁, and &mu;_L,R and &Delta;m (&mu;_L,R, &chi;&#771;⁰₁), respectively. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS searches [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07%282021%29167">JHEP07(2021)167</a>, <a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12%282023%29081">JHEP12(2023)081</a>] are overlaid in dashed grey lines. The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL for the (a) wino-like chargino and neutralino, and (b) smuon models, as a function of the masses of &chi;&#771;^&plusmn;₁ / &chi;&#771;⁰₂ and &chi;&#771;⁰₁, and &mu;_L,R and &Delta;m (&mu;_L,R, &chi;&#771;⁰₁), respectively. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS searches [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07%282021%29167">JHEP07(2021)167</a>, <a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12%282023%29081">JHEP12(2023)081</a>] are overlaid in dashed grey lines. The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL for the (a) wino-like chargino and neutralino, and (b) smuon models, as a function of the masses of &chi;&#771;^&plusmn;₁ / &chi;&#771;⁰₂ and &chi;&#771;⁰₁, and &mu;_L,R and &Delta;m (&mu;_L,R, &chi;&#771;⁰₁), respectively. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS searches [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07%282021%29167">JHEP07(2021)167</a>, <a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12%282023%29081">JHEP12(2023)081</a>] are overlaid in dashed grey lines. The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the distribution of the b-jet multiplicity in the WZ/ttZ CR after the VV jet multiplicity correction. The background contributions after the likelihood fit to data (&apos;post-fit&apos;) for the background-only hypothesis are shown as filled histograms. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg.&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;W, tt&#772;Z, and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the tZq production. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The last bin contains the overflow.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the event yields in the HF_e CR, HF_&mu;, Conversions, and LF_e CRs, after a background-only fit to data (&apos;Post-fit&apos;). The lower panel shows the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg.&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;W, tt&#772;Z, and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the ZZ+LF process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the discovery regions included in the model-independent fit, before any fit to data (&apos;pre-fit&apos;). All signal bins are shown (&apos;SR&apos;) together with the low-anomaly score discovery regions (&apos;CR&apos;). The various requirements on the anomaly score corresponding to the specified background rejection cuts (99.9/99/90/50&percnt;) are shown for all the applicable SRs and CRs. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;Z (4&#8467; only) and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background (&apos;Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions before any fit to data (&apos;pre-fit&apos;): (a) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (b) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z &ge;1b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (c) 4&#8467; Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS &mu;&gt;e, (d) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 0b e&gt;&mu;, (e) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 &ge;1b &mu;&gt;e, and (f) the three &ge;5&#8467; regions: 0Z 0b &mu;&gt;e, 0Z 0b e&ge;&mu;, and 0Z &ge;1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg.&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;Z (4&#8467; only) and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background (&apos;Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions before any fit to data (&apos;pre-fit&apos;): (a) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (b) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z &ge;1b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (c) 4&#8467; Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS &mu;&gt;e, (d) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 0b e&gt;&mu;, (e) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 &ge;1b &mu;&gt;e, and (f) the three &ge;5&#8467; regions: 0Z 0b &mu;&gt;e, 0Z 0b e&ge;&mu;, and 0Z &ge;1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg.&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;Z (4&#8467; only) and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background (&apos;Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions before any fit to data (&apos;pre-fit&apos;): (a) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (b) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z &ge;1b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (c) 4&#8467; Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS &mu;&gt;e, (d) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 0b e&gt;&mu;, (e) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 &ge;1b &mu;&gt;e, and (f) the three &ge;5&#8467; regions: 0Z 0b &mu;&gt;e, 0Z 0b e&ge;&mu;, and 0Z &ge;1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg.&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;Z (4&#8467; only) and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background (&apos;Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions before any fit to data (&apos;pre-fit&apos;): (a) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (b) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z &ge;1b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (c) 4&#8467; Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS &mu;&gt;e, (d) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 0b e&gt;&mu;, (e) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 &ge;1b &mu;&gt;e, and (f) the three &ge;5&#8467; regions: 0Z 0b &mu;&gt;e, 0Z 0b e&ge;&mu;, and 0Z &ge;1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg.&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;Z (4&#8467; only) and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background (&apos;Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions before any fit to data (&apos;pre-fit&apos;): (a) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (b) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z &ge;1b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (c) 4&#8467; Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS &mu;&gt;e, (d) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 0b e&gt;&mu;, (e) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 &ge;1b &mu;&gt;e, and (f) the three &ge;5&#8467; regions: 0Z 0b &mu;&gt;e, 0Z 0b e&ge;&mu;, and 0Z &ge;1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg.&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;Z (4&#8467; only) and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background (&apos;Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions before any fit to data (&apos;pre-fit&apos;): (a) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (b) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z &ge;1b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (c) 4&#8467; Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS &mu;&gt;e, (d) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 0b e&gt;&mu;, (e) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 &ge;1b &mu;&gt;e, and (f) the three &ge;5&#8467; regions: 0Z 0b &mu;&gt;e, 0Z 0b e&ge;&mu;, and 0Z &ge;1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg.&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;Z (4&#8467; only) and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background (&apos;Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Data (dots) and post-fit SM distribution (histograms) of m_&#8467;j in (a, b) SR-1L-ej and (c, d) SR-2L-ej of the e+light-jet channel obtained by a CR+SR background-only fit for Run&nbsp;2 and Run&nbsp;3, respectively. The lower panel shows the ratio of observed data to the total post- and pre-fit SM prediction. The last bin includes the overflow. Uncertainties in the background estimates include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties, with correlations between uncertainties taken into account. The dashed lines show the predicted yields for two benchmark signal models corresponding to S&#771;₁ (m, y_de) = (2.0&nbsp;TeV, 1.0) and S&#771;₁ (m, y_de) = (3.0&nbsp;TeV, 1.0), respectively. Note: the values in the table are normalized by the width of corresponding bin

Data (dots) and post-fit SM distribution (histograms) of m_&#8467;j in (a, b) SR-1L-&mu;j and (c, d) SR-2L-&mu;j of the &mu;+light-jet channel obtained by a CR+SR background-only fit for Run&nbsp;2 and Run&nbsp;3, respectively. The lower panel shows the ratio of observed data to the total post- and pre-fit SM prediction. The last bin includes the overflow. Uncertainties in the background estimates include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties, with correlations between uncertainties taken into account. The dashed lines show the predicted yields for two benchmark signal models corresponding to S&#771;₁ (m, y_s&mu;) = (2.0&nbsp;TeV, 1.5) and S&#771;₁ (m, y_s&mu;) = (3.0&nbsp;TeV, 1.5), respectively. Note: the values in the table are normalized by the width of corresponding bin

Data (dots) and post-fit SM distribution (histograms) of m_&#8467;j in (a, b) SR-1L-&mu;j and (c, d) SR-2L-&mu;j of the &mu;+light-jet channel obtained by a CR+SR background-only fit for Run&nbsp;2 and Run&nbsp;3, respectively. The lower panel shows the ratio of observed data to the total post- and pre-fit SM prediction. The last bin includes the overflow. Uncertainties in the background estimates include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties, with correlations between uncertainties taken into account. The dashed lines show the predicted yields for two benchmark signal models corresponding to S&#771;₁ (m, y_s&mu;) = (2.0&nbsp;TeV, 1.5) and S&#771;₁ (m, y_s&mu;) = (3.0&nbsp;TeV, 1.5), respectively. Note: the values in the table are normalized by the width of corresponding bin

Data (dots) and post-fit SM distribution (histograms) of m_&#8467;j in (a, b) SR-1L-&mu;j and (c, d) SR-2L-&mu;j of the &mu;+light-jet channel obtained by a CR+SR background-only fit for Run&nbsp;2 and Run&nbsp;3, respectively. The lower panel shows the ratio of observed data to the total post- and pre-fit SM prediction. The last bin includes the overflow. Uncertainties in the background estimates include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties, with correlations between uncertainties taken into account. The dashed lines show the predicted yields for two benchmark signal models corresponding to S&#771;₁ (m, y_s&mu;) = (2.0&nbsp;TeV, 1.5) and S&#771;₁ (m, y_s&mu;) = (3.0&nbsp;TeV, 1.5), respectively. Note: the values in the table are normalized by the width of corresponding bin

Data (dots) and post-fit SM distribution (histograms) of m_&#8467;j in (a, b) SR-1L-&mu;j and (c, d) SR-2L-&mu;j of the &mu;+light-jet channel obtained by a CR+SR background-only fit for Run&nbsp;2 and Run&nbsp;3, respectively. The lower panel shows the ratio of observed data to the total post- and pre-fit SM prediction. The last bin includes the overflow. Uncertainties in the background estimates include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties, with correlations between uncertainties taken into account. The dashed lines show the predicted yields for two benchmark signal models corresponding to S&#771;₁ (m, y_s&mu;) = (2.0&nbsp;TeV, 1.5) and S&#771;₁ (m, y_s&mu;) = (3.0&nbsp;TeV, 1.5), respectively. Note: the values in the table are normalized by the width of corresponding bin

Data (dots) and post-fit SM distribution (histograms) of m_&#8467;j in (a, b) SR-1L-eb and (c, d) SR-2L-eb of the e+b-jet channel obtained by a CR+SR background-only fit for Run&nbsp;2 and Run&nbsp;3, respectively. The lower panel shows the ratio of observed data to the total post- and pre-fit SM prediction. The last bin includes the overflow. Uncertainties in the background estimates include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties, with correlations between uncertainties taken into account. The dashed lines show the predicted yields for two benchmark signal models corresponding to S&#771;₁ (m, y_be) = (1.5&nbsp;TeV, 2.5) and S&#771;₁ (m, y_be) = (2.0&nbsp;TeV, 2.5), respectively. Note: the values in the table are normalized by the width of corresponding bin

Data (dots) and post-fit SM distribution (histograms) of m_&#8467;j in (a, b) SR-1L-eb and (c, d) SR-2L-eb of the e+b-jet channel obtained by a CR+SR background-only fit for Run&nbsp;2 and Run&nbsp;3, respectively. The lower panel shows the ratio of observed data to the total post- and pre-fit SM prediction. The last bin includes the overflow. Uncertainties in the background estimates include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties, with correlations between uncertainties taken into account. The dashed lines show the predicted yields for two benchmark signal models corresponding to S&#771;₁ (m, y_be) = (1.5&nbsp;TeV, 2.5) and S&#771;₁ (m, y_be) = (2.0&nbsp;TeV, 2.5), respectively. Note: the values in the table are normalized by the width of corresponding bin

Data (dots) and post-fit SM distribution (histograms) of m_&#8467;j in (a, b) SR-1L-eb and (c, d) SR-2L-eb of the e+b-jet channel obtained by a CR+SR background-only fit for Run&nbsp;2 and Run&nbsp;3, respectively. The lower panel shows the ratio of observed data to the total post- and pre-fit SM prediction. The last bin includes the overflow. Uncertainties in the background estimates include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties, with correlations between uncertainties taken into account. The dashed lines show the predicted yields for two benchmark signal models corresponding to S&#771;₁ (m, y_be) = (1.5&nbsp;TeV, 2.5) and S&#771;₁ (m, y_be) = (2.0&nbsp;TeV, 2.5), respectively. Note: the values in the table are normalized by the width of corresponding bin

Data (dots) and post-fit SM distribution (histograms) of m_&#8467;j in (a, b) SR-1L-eb and (c, d) SR-2L-eb of the e+b-jet channel obtained by a CR+SR background-only fit for Run&nbsp;2 and Run&nbsp;3, respectively. The lower panel shows the ratio of observed data to the total post- and pre-fit SM prediction. The last bin includes the overflow. Uncertainties in the background estimates include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties, with correlations between uncertainties taken into account. The dashed lines show the predicted yields for two benchmark signal models corresponding to S&#771;₁ (m, y_be) = (1.5&nbsp;TeV, 2.5) and S&#771;₁ (m, y_be) = (2.0&nbsp;TeV, 2.5), respectively. Note: the values in the table are normalized by the width of corresponding bin

Data (dots) and post-fit SM distribution (histograms) of m_&#8467;j in (a, b) SR-1L-&mu;b and (c, d) SR-2L-&mu;b of the &mu;+b-jet channel obtained by a CR+SR background-only fit for Run&nbsp;2 and Run&nbsp;3, respectively. The lower panel shows the ratio of observed data to the total post- and pre-fit SM prediction. The last bin includes the overflow. Uncertainties in the background estimates include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties, with correlations between uncertainties taken into account. The dashed lines show the predicted yields for two benchmark signal models corresponding to S&#771;₁ (m, y_b&mu;) = (1.5&nbsp;TeV, 1.5) and S&#771;₁ (m, y_b&mu;) = (2.0&nbsp;TeV, 1.5), respectively. Note: the values in the table are normalized by the width of corresponding bin

Data (dots) and post-fit SM distribution (histograms) of m_&#8467;j in (a, b) SR-1L-&mu;b and (c, d) SR-2L-&mu;b of the &mu;+b-jet channel obtained by a CR+SR background-only fit for Run&nbsp;2 and Run&nbsp;3, respectively. The lower panel shows the ratio of observed data to the total post- and pre-fit SM prediction. The last bin includes the overflow. Uncertainties in the background estimates include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties, with correlations between uncertainties taken into account. The dashed lines show the predicted yields for two benchmark signal models corresponding to S&#771;₁ (m, y_b&mu;) = (1.5&nbsp;TeV, 1.5) and S&#771;₁ (m, y_b&mu;) = (2.0&nbsp;TeV, 1.5), respectively. Note: the values in the table are normalized by the width of corresponding bin

Data (dots) and post-fit SM distribution (histograms) of m_&#8467;j in (a, b) SR-1L-&mu;b and (c, d) SR-2L-&mu;b of the &mu;+b-jet channel obtained by a CR+SR background-only fit for Run&nbsp;2 and Run&nbsp;3, respectively. The lower panel shows the ratio of observed data to the total post- and pre-fit SM prediction. The last bin includes the overflow. Uncertainties in the background estimates include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties, with correlations between uncertainties taken into account. The dashed lines show the predicted yields for two benchmark signal models corresponding to S&#771;₁ (m, y_b&mu;) = (1.5&nbsp;TeV, 1.5) and S&#771;₁ (m, y_b&mu;) = (2.0&nbsp;TeV, 1.5), respectively. Note: the values in the table are normalized by the width of corresponding bin

Data (dots) and post-fit SM distribution (histograms) of m_&#8467;j in (a, b) SR-1L-&mu;b and (c, d) SR-2L-&mu;b of the &mu;+b-jet channel obtained by a CR+SR background-only fit for Run&nbsp;2 and Run&nbsp;3, respectively. The lower panel shows the ratio of observed data to the total post- and pre-fit SM prediction. The last bin includes the overflow. Uncertainties in the background estimates include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties, with correlations between uncertainties taken into account. The dashed lines show the predicted yields for two benchmark signal models corresponding to S&#771;₁ (m, y_b&mu;) = (1.5&nbsp;TeV, 1.5) and S&#771;₁ (m, y_b&mu;) = (2.0&nbsp;TeV, 1.5), respectively. Note: the values in the table are normalized by the width of corresponding bin

Exclusion limits for minimal models of S&#771;₁ production with only y_de being non-zero obtained from a simultaneous fit to SR-1L and SR-2L of the e+light-jet channel combining Run-2 and Run-3 data. All limits are computed at 95&percnt; CL and the observed (red solid lines) and expected (black dashed lines) exclusion limits are shown in the m(S&#771;₁) &ndash; y_de plane. The observed exclusion should be interpreted as the region above the red line. The yellow inner (green outer) shaded band around the expected limits corresponds to the &plusmn;1 &sigma; (&plusmn;2 &sigma;) variations of the expected limit, accounting for all uncertainties. The observed limit obtained from ATLAS searches for LQ pair production is also shown as dark blue line [13]. Constraints from weak charge measurements of protons and nuclei on y_de couplings derived by Ref. [10] are shown as light magenta line.

Exclusion limits for minimal models of S&#771;₁ production with only y_s&mu; being non-zero obtained from a simultaneous fit to SR-1L and SR-2L of the &mu;+light-jet channel combining Run-2 and Run-3 data. All limits are computed at 95&percnt; CL and the observed (red solid lines) and expected (black dashed lines) exclusion limits are shown in the m(S&#771;₁) &ndash; y_s&mu; plane. The observed exclusion should be interpreted as the region above the red line. The yellow inner (green outer) shaded band around the expected limits corresponds to the &plusmn;1 &sigma; (&plusmn;2 &sigma;) variations of the expected limit, accounting for all uncertainties. The observed limit obtained from ATLAS searches for LQ pair production is also shown as dark blue line [13].

Exclusion limits for minimal models of S&#771;₁ production with only y_be being non-zero obtained from a simultaneous fit to SR-1L and SR-2L of the e+b-jet channel combining Run-2 and Run-3 data. All limits are computed at 95&percnt; CL and the observed (red solid lines) and expected (black dashed lines) exclusion limits are shown in the m(S&#771;₁) &ndash; y_be plane. The observed exclusion should be interpreted as the region above the red line. The yellow inner (green outer) shaded band around the expected limits corresponds to the &plusmn;1 &sigma; (&plusmn;2 &sigma;) variations of the expected limit, accounting for all uncertainties. The observed limit obtained from ATLAS searches for LQ pair production is also shown as dark blue line [13].

Exclusion limits for minimal models of S&#771;₁ production with only y_b&mu; being non-zero obtained from a simultaneous fit to SR-1L and SR-2L of the &mu;+b-jet channel combining Run-2 and Run-3 data. All limits are computed at 95&percnt; CL and the observed (red solid lines) and expected (black dashed lines) exclusion limits are shown in the m(S&#771;₁) &ndash; y_b&mu; plane. The observed exclusion should be interpreted as the region above the red line. The yellow inner (green outer) shaded band around the expected limits corresponds to the &plusmn;1 &sigma; (&plusmn;2 &sigma;) variations of the expected limit, accounting for all uncertainties. The observed limit obtained from ATLAS searches for LQ pair production is also shown as dark blue line [13].

Exclusion limits for minimal models of S&#771;₁ production obtained from a fit to SR-1L, SR-2L and their combination of (a) the e+light-jet, (b) the &mu;+light-jet, (c) the e+b-jet and (d) the &mu;+b-jet channel using Run-2 and Run-3 data. All limits are computed at 95&percnt; CL and the observed (solid lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion limits are shown in the m(S&#771;₁) &ndash; y plane. The observed exclusion regions should be interpreted as the region above the solid lines. Constraints from weak charge measurements of protons and nuclei&nbsp; and ATLAS searches for LQ pair production&nbsp; are shown as light magenta and dark blue areas, respectively.

Exclusion limits for minimal models of S&#771;₁ production obtained from a fit to SR-1L, SR-2L and their combination of (a) the e+light-jet, (b) the &mu;+light-jet, (c) the e+b-jet and (d) the &mu;+b-jet channel using Run-2 and Run-3 data. All limits are computed at 95&percnt; CL and the observed (solid lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion limits are shown in the m(S&#771;₁) &ndash; y plane. The observed exclusion regions should be interpreted as the region above the solid lines. Constraints from weak charge measurements of protons and nuclei&nbsp; and ATLAS searches for LQ pair production&nbsp; are shown as light magenta and dark blue areas, respectively.

Exclusion limits for minimal models of S&#771;₁ production obtained from a fit to SR-1L, SR-2L and their combination of (a) the e+light-jet, (b) the &mu;+light-jet, (c) the e+b-jet and (d) the &mu;+b-jet channel using Run-2 and Run-3 data. All limits are computed at 95&percnt; CL and the observed (solid lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion limits are shown in the m(S&#771;₁) &ndash; y plane. The observed exclusion regions should be interpreted as the region above the solid lines. Constraints from weak charge measurements of protons and nuclei&nbsp; and ATLAS searches for LQ pair production&nbsp; are shown as light magenta and dark blue areas, respectively.

Exclusion limits for minimal models of S&#771;₁ production obtained from a fit to SR-1L, SR-2L and their combination of (a) the e+light-jet, (b) the &mu;+light-jet, (c) the e+b-jet and (d) the &mu;+b-jet channel using Run-2 and Run-3 data. All limits are computed at 95&percnt; CL and the observed (solid lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion limits are shown in the m(S&#771;₁) &ndash; y plane. The observed exclusion regions should be interpreted as the region above the solid lines. Constraints from weak charge measurements of protons and nuclei&nbsp; and ATLAS searches for LQ pair production&nbsp; are shown as light magenta and dark blue areas, respectively.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for resonant production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$ej$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$ej$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1-$ej$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2-$ej$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for resonant production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$ej$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$ej$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1-$ej$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2-$ej$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for resonant production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$ej$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$ej$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1-$ej$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2-$ej$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for resonant production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$ej$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$ej$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1-$ej$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2-$ej$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for DY+SP production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$ej$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$ej$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1-$ej$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2-$ej$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for DY+SP production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$ej$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$ej$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1-$ej$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2-$ej$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for DY+SP production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$ej$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$ej$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1-$ej$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2-$ej$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for DY+SP production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$ej$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$ej$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1-$ej$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2-$ej$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for resonant production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$\mu j$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$\mu j$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$\mu j$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$\mu j$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for resonant production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$\mu j$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$\mu j$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$\mu j$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$\mu j$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for resonant production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$\mu j$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$\mu j$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$\mu j$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$\mu j$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for resonant production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$\mu j$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$\mu j$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$\mu j$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$\mu j$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for DY+SP production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$\mu j$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$\mu j$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$\mu j$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$\mu j$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for DY+SP production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$\mu j$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$\mu j$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$\mu j$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$\mu j$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for DY+SP production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$\mu j$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$\mu j$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$\mu j$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$\mu j$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for DY+SP production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$\mu j$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$\mu j$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$\mu j$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$\mu j$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for resonant production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$eb$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$eb$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$eb$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$eb$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for resonant production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$eb$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$eb$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$eb$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$eb$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for resonant production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$eb$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$eb$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$eb$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$eb$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for resonant production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$eb$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$eb$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$eb$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$eb$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for DY+SP of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$eb$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$eb$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$eb$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$eb$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for DY+SP of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$eb$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$eb$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$eb$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$eb$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for DY+SP of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$eb$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$eb$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$eb$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$eb$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for DY+SP of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$eb$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$eb$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$eb$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$eb$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for resonant production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$\mu b$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$\mu b$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$\mu b$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$\mu b$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for resonant production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$\mu b$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$\mu b$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$\mu b$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$\mu b$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for resonant production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$\mu b$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$\mu b$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$\mu b$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$\mu b$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for resonant production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$\mu b$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$\mu b$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$\mu b$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$\mu b$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for DY+SP production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$\mu b$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$\mu b$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$\mu b$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$\mu b$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for DY+SP production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$\mu b$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$\mu b$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$\mu b$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$\mu b$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for DY+SP production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$\mu b$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$\mu b$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$\mu b$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$\mu b$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Values of the signal acceptance multiplied by the selection efficiency ($A\times\epsilon$) for DY+SP production of $\tilde{S}$ in (a) Run 2 SR-1L-$\mu b$ and (b) Run 2 SR-2L-$\mu b$ and (c) Run 3 SR-1L-$\mu b$ and (d) Run 3 SR-2L-$\mu b$. The $A \times \epsilon$ values are calculated as the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the total cross-section of the signal process times the integrated luminosity.

Event selection cutflows of SR-1L-$eb$ for the signal sample with $m(\tilde{S}) = 2$ TeV and $y_{be} = 1.0$ individually for resonant production (RP) and combined Drell-Yan plus single production (DY+SP). The first number in the column for each mass points corresponds to the signal event yield after applying the associated cut while the second number in parentheses represents the efficiency with respect to the previous cut.

Event selection cutflows of SR-2L-$eb$ for the signal sample with $m(\tilde{S}) = 2$ TeV and $y_{be} = 1.0$ individually for resonant production (RP) and combined Drell-Yan plus single production (DY+SP). The first number in the column for each mass points corresponds to the signal event yield after applying the associated cut while the second number in parentheses represents the efficiency with respect to the previous cut.

Event selection cutflows of SR-1L-$ej$ for the signal sample with $m(\tilde{S}) = 2$ TeV and $y_{de} = 1.0$ individually for resonant production (RP) and combined Drell-Yan plus single production (DY+SP). The first number in the column for each mass points corresponds to the signal event yield after applying the associated cut while the second number in parentheses represents the efficiency with respect to the previous cut.

Event selection cutflows of SR-2L-$ej$ for the signal sample with $m(\tilde{S}) = 2$ TeV and $y_{de} = 1.0$ individually for resonant production (RP) and combined Drell-Yan plus single production (DY+SP). The first number in the column for each mass points corresponds to the signal event yield after applying the associated cut while the second number in parentheses represents the efficiency with respect to the previous cut.

Event selection cutflows of SR-1L-$\mu b$ for the signal sample with $m(\tilde{S}) = 2$ TeV and $y_{b\mu} = 1.0$ individually for resonant production (RP) and combined Drell-Yan plus single production (DY+SP). The first number in the column for each mass points corresponds to the signal event yield after applying the associated cut while the second number in parentheses represents the efficiency with respect to the previous cut.

Event selection cutflows of SR-2L-$\mu b$ for the signal sample with $m(\tilde{S}) = 2$ TeV and $y_{b\mu} = 1.0$ individually for resonant production (RP) and combined Drell-Yan plus single production (DY+SP). The first number in the column for each mass points corresponds to the signal event yield after applying the associated cut while the second number in parentheses represents the efficiency with respect to the previous cut.

Event selection cutflows of SR-1L-$\mu j$ for the signal sample with $m(\tilde{S}) = 2$ TeV and $y_{s\mu} = 1.0$ individually for resonant production (RP) and combined Drell-Yan plus single production (DY+SP). The first number in the column for each mass points corresponds to the signal event yield after applying the associated cut while the second number in parentheses represents the efficiency with respect to the previous cut.

Event selection cutflows of SR-2L-$\mu j$ for the signal sample with $m(\tilde{S}) = 2$ TeV and $y_{s\mu} = 1.0$ individually for resonant production (RP) and combined Drell-Yan plus single production (DY+SP). The first number in the column for each mass points corresponds to the signal event yield after applying the associated cut while the second number in parentheses represents the efficiency with respect to the previous cut.

Pre-fit MC statistical uncertainties per bin. These values are used to quantify the MC statistical uncertainty contributions to the total uncertainty in $m_t$ based on elements from the covariance matrix obtained in the profile likelihood fit. Each MC statistical contribution is estimated by dividing the relevant covariance matrix entry (see Table 2) by the corresponding pre-fit MC statistical uncertainty for that bin.

The contribution of each source of systematic uncertainty to the total uncertainty in $m_t$ is provided. Each source's contribution is taken directly from the relevant element of the covariance matrix for the profile likelihood fit to $\overline{m_J}$, $m_{jj}$, and $m_{tj}$ using data. The sign of the effect of each uncertainty is included.

The fitted $m_t$ is provided for each replica generated using bootstrapping. Each replica is a 3D histogram of $m_{J}$, $m_{jj}$, and $m_{tj}$, where $m_{J}$ has 50 bins between 145.0 GeV and 205.0 GeV. This method uses the BootstrapGenerator class in ROOT to initialise a pseudo-random number generator for each event, which is seeded by the value of the eventNumber and runNumber variables for a given event in the input dataset. The pseudo-random numbers are drawn from a Poisson distribution with rate parameter equal to 1. These are used to fluctuate the amount by which each replica histogram is filled. There are 1000 replicas, numbered from 0 to 999.

The performance of jet energy resolution (JER) for jets with |y| < 2.1 evaluated as a function of pT_truth in different centrality bins. Simulated hard scatter events were overlaid onto events from a dedicated sample of minimum-bias Xe+Xe data. The fit parameters are listed in a sperate table (Extras 1)

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for per-pair normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for absolutely normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for rho distributions for leading jets in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

Parameter a,b, and c from JER fits in Figure 1b.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

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.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.8,1]. 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 $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 200 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 $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [200,300] 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 $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [300,400] 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 $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 400 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 $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 20 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 $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [20, 70] 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 $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 70 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.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.