Data from Figure 32 – STEREO exclusion and exclusion sensitivity contours at 90% C.L. for 179 days reactor-on (phase-I+II). A full graphical presentation can be downloaded at "Resources" for reference.

Data from Figures 33 and 34 – STEREO exclusion and exclusion sensitivity contours at 95% C.L. for 179 days reactor-on (phase-I+II) using the two-dimensional method. A graphical presentation can be downloaded at "Resources" for reference.

Data from Figures 33 and 34 – STEREO exclusion and exclusion sensitivity contours at 95% C.L. for 179 days reactor-on (phase-I+II) using the two-dimensional method. A graphical presentation can be downloaded at "Resources" for reference.

$\Delta \chi^2$ map of phase-I+II data calculated by a raster-scan method. To be used in combination with the $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ values to generate exclusion contours at $x$% C.L. for phase-I+II data. Additional explanations are given there.

Data from Figure 34 – STEREO exclusion and exclusion sensitivity contours at 95% C.L. for 179 days reactor-on (phase-I+II) using the raster-scan method. A graphical presentation can be downloaded at "Resources" for reference.

Data from Figure 34 – STEREO exclusion and exclusion sensitivity contours at 95% C.L. for 179 days reactor-on (phase-I+II) using the raster-scan method. A graphical presentation can be downloaded at "Resources" for reference.

The $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ map accounts for the fact that the $\Delta \chi^2$ values of the oscillation fit do not follow a $\chi^2$ distribution with 2 degrees of freedom. Therefore, the $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ value for x% C.L. of each point $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ in the parameter space, $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}(\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41})$, is determined from the $\Delta \chi^2$ obtained in pseudo-experiments at that point, such that $\Delta \chi^2 \leq \Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$, for $x$% of the pseudo-experiments. Applying these $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ values to the $\Delta \chi^2$ map obtained with the data, $x$% C.L. exclusion contours are obtained. The point $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ is excluded by the data at $x$% C.L. if $\Delta \chi^2(\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}) > \Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}(\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41})$. In order to obtain the $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ map, $10^4$ pseudo-experiments were generated for each point $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ in the parameter space, taking into account all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The $\Delta \chi^2$ value of a pseudo-experiment is calculated by subtracting the $\chi^2$ value of the best-fit in the parameter space from the $\chi^2$ value of the fit at the $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ used in the generation of the pseudo-dataset, where all nuisance parameters are free within their pull terms. When combining the exclusion contours with other experimental data, special care should be exercised. The assumption of a standard $\chi^2$ law instead of the provided $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ values derived from non-standard $\chi^2$ distributions leads to slightly modified contours. In addition, the contours were derived using a raster-scan in several fixed values of $\Delta m_{41}^2$. While this method is particularly suited to derive exclusion contours, it cannot be used to calculate allowed confidence regions for $\Delta m_{41}^2$ and consequently two-dimensional allowed confidence regions. This is because $\Delta \chi^2$ values are not reflecting the likelihood of individual $\Delta m_{41}^2$ values. Thus, a direct comparison of $\Delta \chi^2$ values across different $\Delta m_{41}^2$ values is not possible in a statistically meaningful way. When generating the exclusion contours with the aforementioned procedure, spurious exclusion regions at low values of $\sin^2(2\theta_{ee})$ can be encountered for some values of $\Delta m^2_{41}$. These should be ignored and are owed to the raster-scan procedure used to generate the maps.

Data from Figure 34 – STEREO exclusion and exclusion sensitivity contours at 95% C.L. for 179 days reactor-on (phase-I+II) using the CLs method. A graphical presentation can be downloaded at "Resources" for reference.

Data from Figure 34 – STEREO exclusion and exclusion sensitivity contours at 95% C.L. for 179 days reactor-on (phase-I+II) using the CLs method. A graphical presentation can be downloaded at "Resources" for reference.

$\Delta \chi^2$ map of phase-I+II data calculated by the two-dimensional method. To be used in combination with the $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ values of the two-dimensional method to generate exclusion contours at $x$% C.L. for phase-I+II data. Additional explanations are given there.

$\Delta \chi^2$ map of phase-I+II data calculated by the two-dimensional method. To be used in combination with the $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ values of the two-dimensional method to generate exclusion contours at $x$% C.L. for phase-I+II data. Additional explanations are given there.

The $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ map accounts for the fact that the $\Delta \chi^2$ values of the oscillation fit do not follow a $\chi^2$ distribution with 2 degrees of freedom. Therefore, the $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ value for x% C.L. of each point $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ in the parameter space, $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}(\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41})$, is determined from the $\Delta \chi^2$ obtained in pseudo-experiments at that point, such that $\Delta \chi^2 \leq \Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$, for $x$% of the pseudo-experiments. Applying these $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ values to the $\Delta \chi^2$ map obtained with the data, $x$% C.L. exclusion contours are obtained. The point $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ is excluded by the data at $x$% C.L. if $\Delta \chi^2(\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}) > \Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}(\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41})$. In order to obtain the $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ map, $10^4$ pseudo-experiments were generated for each point $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ in the parameter space, taking into account all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The $\Delta \chi^2$ value of a pseudo-experiment is calculated by subtracting the $\chi^2$ value of the best-fit in the parameter space from the $\chi^2$ value of the fit at the $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ used in the generation of the pseudo-dataset, where all nuisance parameters are free within their pull terms. When combining the exclusion contours with other experimental data, special care should be exercised. The assumption of a standard $\chi^2$ law instead of the provided $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ values derived from non-standard $\chi^2$ distributions leads to modified contours. In addition, for the interpretation of derived allowed confidence regions, one should always consider additional available information, in particular rate information. This is especially advisable considering the expected distribution of best-fit points in a prediction-free shape-only analysis, as discussed in the main publication.

The $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ map accounts for the fact that the $\Delta \chi^2$ values of the oscillation fit do not follow a $\chi^2$ distribution with 2 degrees of freedom. Therefore, the $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ value for x% C.L. of each point $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ in the parameter space, $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}(\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41})$, is determined from the $\Delta \chi^2$ obtained in pseudo-experiments at that point, such that $\Delta \chi^2 \leq \Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$, for $x$% of the pseudo-experiments. Applying these $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ values to the $\Delta \chi^2$ map obtained with the data, $x$% C.L. exclusion contours are obtained. The point $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ is excluded by the data at $x$% C.L. if $\Delta \chi^2(\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}) > \Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}(\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41})$. In order to obtain the $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ map, $10^4$ pseudo-experiments were generated for each point $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ in the parameter space, taking into account all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The $\Delta \chi^2$ value of a pseudo-experiment is calculated by subtracting the $\chi^2$ value of the best-fit in the parameter space from the $\chi^2$ value of the fit at the $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ used in the generation of the pseudo-dataset, where all nuisance parameters are free within their pull terms. When combining the exclusion contours with other experimental data, special care should be exercised. The assumption of a standard $\chi^2$ law instead of the provided $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ values derived from non-standard $\chi^2$ distributions leads to modified contours. In addition, for the interpretation of derived allowed confidence regions, one should always consider additional available information, in particular rate information. This is especially advisable considering the expected distribution of best-fit points in a prediction-free shape-only analysis, as discussed in the main publication.

$\Delta \chi^2$ map of phase-I+II data calculated by the raster-scan method. To be used in combination with the $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ values of the raster-scan method to generate exclusion contours at $x$% C.L. for phase-I+II data. Additional explanations are given there.

$\Delta \chi^2$ map of phase-I+II data calculated by the raster-scan method. To be used in combination with the $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ values of the raster-scan method to generate exclusion contours at $x$% C.L. for phase-I+II data. Additional explanations are given there.

The $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ and $\Delta \chi^2$ values in the raster-scan method serve the same purpose as in the two-dimensional method. The explanations given there also apply here, with the following changes: Instead of the two free oscillation parameters $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$, the raster-scan method fits only $\sin^2(2\theta_{ee})$ as free oscillation parameter while repeating the fit for several fixed values of $\Delta m_{41}^2$. While this method is particularly suited to derive exclusion contours, it cannot be used to calculate allowed confidence regions for $\Delta m_{41}^2$ and consequently two-dimensional allowed confidence regions. This is because $\Delta \chi^2$ values are not reflecting the likelihood of individual $\Delta m_{41}^2$ values. Thus, a direct comparison of $\Delta \chi^2$ values across different $\Delta m_{41}^2$ values is not possible in a statistically meaningful way. Moreover, when generating the exclusion contours with the aforementioned procedure, spurious exclusion regions at low values of $\sin^2(2\theta_{ee})$ can be encountered for some values of $\Delta m^2_{41}$. These should be ignored and are owed to the raster-scan procedure used to generate the maps.

The $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ and $\Delta \chi^2$ values in the raster-scan method serve the same purpose as in the two-dimensional method. The explanations given there also apply here, with the following changes: Instead of the two free oscillation parameters $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$, the raster-scan method fits only $\sin^2(2\theta_{ee})$ as free oscillation parameter while repeating the fit for several fixed values of $\Delta m_{41}^2$. While this method is particularly suited to derive exclusion contours, it cannot be used to calculate allowed confidence regions for $\Delta m_{41}^2$ and consequently two-dimensional allowed confidence regions. This is because $\Delta \chi^2$ values are not reflecting the likelihood of individual $\Delta m_{41}^2$ values. Thus, a direct comparison of $\Delta \chi^2$ values across different $\Delta m_{41}^2$ values is not possible in a statistically meaningful way. Moreover, when generating the exclusion contours with the aforementioned procedure, spurious exclusion regions at low values of $\sin^2(2\theta_{ee})$ can be encountered for some values of $\Delta m^2_{41}$. These should be ignored and are owed to the raster-scan procedure used to generate the maps.

$\Delta T$ map of phase-I+II data calculated by the CLs method. To be used in combination with the $\Delta T_{\text{crit},x}$ values of the CLs method to generate exclusion contours at $x$% C.L. for phase-I+II data. Additional explanations are given there.

$\Delta T$ map of phase-I+II data calculated by the CLs method. To be used in combination with the $\Delta T_{\text{crit},x}$ values of the CLs method to generate exclusion contours at $x$% C.L. for phase-I+II data. Additional explanations are given there.

The $\Delta T_{\text{crit},x}$ and $\Delta T$ values in the CLs method fulfil a similar purpose as the $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ and $\Delta \chi^2$ values in the two-dimensional method. The explanations given there also apply here, with the following changes: The CLs method differs from the two-dimensional method as it normalises the confidence level of the oscillation-hypothesis to the confidence level of the null-hypothesis (i.e. no-oscillation-hypothesis), instead of the best-fit. The $\Delta T$ value of a dataset at the parameter space-point $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ is computed by subtracting the $\chi^2$ value of the fit under the no-oscillation hypothesis from the $\chi^2$ value of the fit with the oscillation parameters fixed to $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$. With this definition, $\Delta T$ values can be positive or negative as opposed to $\Delta \chi^2$ values. Note that the values used to compare with are $-\Delta T$ and not $\Delta T$ directly. The CLs value of a parameter space-point $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ is defined as $\text{CL}_\text{s}(\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}):=(1-p_1)/(1-p_0)$ where $(1-p_0)$ and $(1-p_1)$ are the confidence levels of the dataset, determined from the distributions of $-\Delta T$ created in pseudo-experiments assuming the oscillation parameters $[0,0]$ and $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$, respectively. The point $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ is excluded by the data at $x$% C.L. if $\Delta T(\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}) < \Delta T_{\text{crit},x}(\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41})$. Note the flipped sign with respect to the two-dimensional method and the raster-scan method. More information on the CLs method can be found at "Resources".

The $\Delta T_{\text{crit},x}$ and $\Delta T$ values in the CLs method fulfil a similar purpose as the $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ and $\Delta \chi^2$ values in the two-dimensional method. The explanations given there also apply here, with the following changes: The CLs method differs from the two-dimensional method as it normalises the confidence level of the oscillation-hypothesis to the confidence level of the null-hypothesis (i.e. no-oscillation-hypothesis), instead of the best-fit. The $\Delta T$ value of a dataset at the parameter space-point $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ is computed by subtracting the $\chi^2$ value of the fit under the no-oscillation hypothesis from the $\chi^2$ value of the fit with the oscillation parameters fixed to $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$. With this definition, $\Delta T$ values can be positive or negative as opposed to $\Delta \chi^2$ values. Note that the values used to compare with are $-\Delta T$ and not $\Delta T$ directly. The CLs value of a parameter space-point $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ is defined as $\text{CL}_\text{s}(\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}):=(1-p_1)/(1-p_0)$ where $(1-p_0)$ and $(1-p_1)$ are the confidence levels of the dataset, determined from the distributions of $-\Delta T$ created in pseudo-experiments assuming the oscillation parameters $[0,0]$ and $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$, respectively. The point $[\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}]$ is excluded by the data at $x$% C.L. if $\Delta T(\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41}) < \Delta T_{\text{crit},x}(\sin^2(2\theta_{ee}), \Delta m^2_{41})$. Note the flipped sign with respect to the two-dimensional method and the raster-scan method. More information on the CLs method can be found at "Resources".

Map of mean $\Delta \chi^2$ values derived from simulations of phase-I+II and calculated by the two-dimensional method. To be used analogously to the $\Delta \chi^2$ map of phase-I+II data in combination with the $\Delta \chi^2_{\text{crit},x}$ values of the two-dimensional method to generate sensitivity contours at $x$% C.L. for phase-I+II. Additional explanations are given there.

The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle level.

The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle level.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow ee$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) and Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. for the electron momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Elec. (Reco), Elec. (ID), Isolation, Trigger and Charge-ID denote the correlated uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the electron reconstruction, identification, isolation, trigger and charge-identification efficiencies; The uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow ee$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) and Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. for the electron momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Elec. (Reco), Elec. (ID), Isolation, Trigger and Charge-ID denote the correlated uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the electron reconstruction, identification, isolation, trigger and charge-identification efficiencies; The uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on bare level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on bare level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Measured combined normalized differential cross-section in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle.

Measured combined normalized differential cross-section in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of dilepton invariant mass $m_{ll}$ , the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of dilepton invariant mass $m_{ll}$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of lepton pseudorapidity $\eta$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of lepton pseudorapidity $\eta$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of dilepton transverse momentum. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of dilepton transverse momentum. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The measured normalized cross section as a function of $p_{ll}$ for the electron and muon channels and the combined result as well as their ratio together with the total uncertainties, shown as a blue band. The pull distribution between the electron and muon channels, defined as the difference between the two channels divided by the combined uncorrelated uncertainty, is also shown. The $p_{ll}$ distribution is split into linear and logarithmic scales at 30 GeV.

The measured normalized cross section as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ for the electron and muon channels and the combined result as well as their ratio together with the total uncertainties, shown as a blue band. The pull distribution between the electron and muon channels, defined as the difference between the two channels divided by the combined uncorrelated uncertainty, is also shown.

Comparison of the normalized $p_{ll}$ distributions predicted by different computations: Pythia8 with the AZ tune, Powheg+Pythia8 with the AZNLO tune, Sherpa v2.2.1 and RadISH with the Born level combined measurement. The uncertainties of the measurement are shown as vertical bars and uncertainties of the Sherpa and RadISH predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.

Comparison of the normalized $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ distributions predicted by different computations: Pythia8 with the AZ tune, Powheg+Pythia8 with the AZNLO tune, Sherpa v2.2.1 and RadISH with the Born level combined measurement. The uncertainties of the measurement are shown as vertical bars and uncertainties of the Sherpa and RadISH predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.

Comparison of the normalized $p_{ll}$ distribution in the range $p_{ll}$ > 10 GeV. The Born level combined measurement is compared with predictions by Sherpa v2.2.1, fixed-order NNLOjet and NNLOjet supplied with NLO electroweak corrections. The uncertainties in the measurement are shown as vertical bars and the uncertainties in the predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.

The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at dressed level.

The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at dressed level.

Observed $CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times BR$ for $m_{\Phi} = 200-400$ GeV.

Observed $CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times BR$ for $m_{\Phi} = 600-1000$ GeV.

Combined limits from this analysis (ID) and the CR and MS analyses for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 15$ GeV.

Combined limits from this analysis (ID) and the CR and MS analyses for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 25$ GeV.

Combined limits from this analysis (ID) and the CR and MS analyses for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 40$ GeV.

Combined limits from this analysis (ID) and the CR and MS analyses for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 55$ GeV.

Combined limits from this analysis (ID) and the CR and MS analyses for $m_{\Phi} = 200$ GeV, $m_s = 25$ GeV.

Combined limits from this analysis (ID) and the CR and MS analyses for $m_{\Phi} = 200$ GeV, $m_s = 50$ GeV.

Comparison of the IDVx reconstruction and selection efficiency for a Higgs with a mass of 125 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 8 GeV, using only standard tracking versus using standard and large radius tracking for all ID vertices in the signal MC sample.

Comparison of the IDVx reconstruction and selection efficiency for a Higgs with a mass of 125 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 8 GeV, using only standard tracking versus using standard and large radius tracking for ID vertices passing the full IDVx selection criteria.

Comparison of the IDVx reconstruction and selection efficiency for a $\Phi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 150 GeV, using only standard tracking versus using standard and large radius tracking for all ID vertices in the signal MC sample.

Comparison of the IDVx reconstruction and selection efficiency for a $\Phi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 150 GeV, using only standard tracking versus using standard and large radius tracking for ID vertices passing the full IDVx selection criteria.

The IDVx selection efficiency as a function of long-lived particle decay $z$ position for MC signal samples with a 125 GeV Higgs boson decaying to LLPs with masses of 8, 25, and 55 GeV. The efficiency for the 55 GeV LLP sample is shown both with and without the material veto applied.

The IDVx selection efficiency as a function of long-lived particle decay $z$ position for MC signal samples with mediators of masses 200, 400, and 600 GeV decaying to LLPs with a mass of 50 GeV. The efficiency for the 200 GeV mediator sample is shown both with and without the material veto applied.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a Higgs with a mass of 125 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 8 GeV.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a Higgs with a mass of 125 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 8 GeV.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a Higgs with a mass of 125 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 8 GeV.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a $\Phi$ with a mass of 400 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 50 GeV.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a $\Phi$ with a mass of 400 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 50 GeV.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a $\Phi$ with a mass of 400 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 50 GeV.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a $\Phi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 150 GeV.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a $\Phi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 150 GeV.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a $\Phi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 150 GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $B_{H\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 8$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $B_{H\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 15$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $B_{H\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 25$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $B_{H\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 40$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $B_{H\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 55$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 200$ GeV, $m_s = 8$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 200$ GeV, $m_s = 25$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 200$ GeV, $m_s = 50$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 400$ GeV, $m_s = 50$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 400$ GeV, $m_s = 100$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 600$ GeV, $m_s = 50$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 600$ GeV, $m_s = 150$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 1000$ GeV, $m_s = 50$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 1000$ GeV, $m_s = 150$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 1000$ GeV, $m_s = 400$ GeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of VBF wino-bino production.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct smuon production.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct smuon production.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct selectron production.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct selectron production.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH slepton production.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH slepton production.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH slepton production.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH slepton production.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.

Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.

Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.

Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.

Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.

Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.

Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.

Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.

Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios.

Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios, assuming VBF production..

Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct slepton scenarios.

Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH slepton scenarios.

Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH slepton scenarios.

Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct smuon scenarios.

Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH smuon scenarios.

Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH smuon scenarios.

Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct selectron scenarios.

Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH selectron scenarios.

Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH selectron scenarios.

Number of signal events in SR-E-1L1T for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.

Number of signal events in SR-E-high for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.

Number of signal events in SR-E-low for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.

Number of signal events in SR-E-med for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.

Number of signal events in SR-S-high for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.

Number of signal events in SR-S-low for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.

Number of signal events in SR-VBF for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (100 GeV, 95 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with combined ${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with ${\tilde{\tau}}_L {\tilde{\tau}}_L$ only production.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with ${\tilde{\tau}}_L {\tilde{\tau}}_L$ only production.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-lowMass.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-lowMass.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-highMass.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-highMass.

Signal acceptance in SR highMass for combined stau final states

Signal acceptance in SR lowMass for combined stau final states

Signal efficiency in SR highMass for combined stau final states

Signal efficiency in SR lowMass for combined stau final states

Signal acceptance*efficiency in SR highMass for combined stau final states

Signal acceptance*efficiency in SR lowMass for combined stau final states

Cutflow for two reference points (${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production) in SR. The column labelled $N_{weighted}$ shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$, while $N_{raw}$ in brackets shows the results for the generated number of events. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only. The "Generator filter" includes the requirements that two $\tau$ in the event have ${p}_{T} > 15$ GeV and $|\eta| <$ 2.6. The "Baseline Cut" includes the requirement of two baseline $\tau$ with a minimum value at 0.01 of the boosted decision tree discriminant (JetBDTSigTransMin $>$ 0.01) and ${p}_{T, \tau_{1}} > 50$ GeV and ${p}_{T, \tau_{2}} > 40$ GeV. At the step "Trigger & offline cuts", the following requirements are applied: the event is recorded using the asymmetric di-$\tau$ trigger (di-$\tau$ $E_{T}^{miss}$ trigger) in SR-lowMass (SR-highMass), and the lepton $p_{T}$ and $E_{T}^{miss}$ are required at plateau.

Observed and expected numbers of events in the control and signal regions where all control and signal region bins are included as constraints in the likelihood. The expected event yields of SM processes are given after the background-only fit. The entries marked as "--" are negligible. The uncertainties correspond to the sum in quadrature of statistical and systematic uncertainties. The correlation of systematic uncertainties among control regions and among background processes is fully taken into account.

The post-fit $m_{T2}$ distribution for SR-lowMass. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the ABCD method. The contributions of multi-jet and $W$+jets events are scaled with the corresponding normalization factors derived from the background-only fit. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions from the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The last bin includes the overflow events.

The post-fit $m_{T2}$ distribution for SR-highMass. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the ABCD method. The contributions of multi-jet and $W$+jets events are scaled with the corresponding normalization factors derived from the background-only fit. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions from the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The last bin includes the overflow events.

The $m_{T2}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation region VR-F (lowMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.

The $m_{T2}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation VR-F (highMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.

The $E_{T}^{miss}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation region VR-F (lowMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.

The $E_{T}^{miss}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation region VR-F (highMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.

The pre-fit $m_{T2}$ distribution in the $WCR$. The SM backgrounds other than multi-jet production are estimated from MC simulation. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the OS--SS method. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.

The post-fit yields in the $WVR$, $TVRs$, $ZVRs$ and $VVVRs$. The SM backgrounds other than multi-jet production are estimated from MC simulation. The multi-jet contribution is negligible and is estimated from data using the ABCD method, using CRs obtained with the same technique used for the SRs. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the SM background estimate.

The measured fiducial cross section vs $m(\ell\ell\gamma)$. The central values are provided along with the statistical and systematic uncertainties together with the sign information. The statistical and "Uncor" uncertainty should be treated as uncorrelated bin-to-bin, while the rest are correlated between bins, and they are written as signed NP variations. The parton-to-particle correction factor $C_{theory}$ is the ratio of the cross-section predicted by Sherpa LO samples at particle level within the fiducial phase-space region defined in Table 4 to the predicted cross-section at parton level within the same fiducial region but with the smooth-cone isolation prescription defined above replacing the particle-level photon isolation criterion, and with Born-level leptons in place of dressed leptons. This correction should be applied on fixed order parton-level calculations. The systematic uncertainty is evaluated from a comparison with the correction factor obtained using events generated with Sherpa 2.2.2 at NLO. The uncertainty is defined as Max(stat error, systematic difference between Sherpa LO and Sherpa 2.2.2 NLO), and cannot be considered correlated bin-to-bin. In the case that the calculations are valid for dressed leptons, a modified correction factor excluding the Born-to-dressed lepton correction should be applied instead. This correction only takes into account the particle-level isolation criteria, and is provided separately here. The Sherpa 2.2.8 NLO cross-sections given below include a small contribution from EW $Z\gamma jj$ production.

The measured fiducial cross section vs $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell\ell\gamma}$. The central values are provided along with the statistical and systematic uncertainties together with the sign information. The statistical and "Uncor" uncertainty should be treated as uncorrelated bin-to-bin, while the rest are correlated between bins, and they are written as signed NP variations. The parton-to-particle correction factor $C_{theory}$ is the ratio of the cross-section predicted by Sherpa LO samples at particle level within the fiducial phase-space region defined in Table 4 to the predicted cross-section at parton level within the same fiducial region but with the smooth-cone isolation prescription defined above replacing the particle-level photon isolation criterion, and with Born-level leptons in place of dressed leptons. This correction should be applied on fixed order parton-level calculations. The systematic uncertainty is evaluated from a comparison with the correction factor obtained using events generated with Sherpa 2.2.2 at NLO. The uncertainty is defined as Max(stat error, systematic difference between Sherpa LO and Sherpa 2.2.2 NLO), and cannot be considered correlated bin-to-bin. In the case that the calculations are valid for dressed leptons, a modified correction factor excluding the Born-to-dressed lepton correction should be applied instead. This correction only takes into account the particle-level isolation criteria, and is provided separately here. The Sherpa 2.2.8 NLO cross-sections given below include a small contribution from EW $Z\gamma jj$ production.

The measured fiducial cross section vs $\Delta\phi(ll,\gamma)$. The central values are provided along with the statistical and systematic uncertainties together with the sign information. The statistical and "Uncor" uncertainty should be treated as uncorrelated bin-to-bin, while the rest are correlated between bins, and they are written as signed NP variations. The parton-to-particle correction factor $C_{theory}$ is the ratio of the cross-section predicted by Sherpa LO samples at particle level within the fiducial phase-space region defined in Table 4 to the predicted cross-section at parton level within the same fiducial region but with the smooth-cone isolation prescription defined above replacing the particle-level photon isolation criterion, and with Born-level leptons in place of dressed leptons. This correction should be applied on fixed order parton-level calculations. The systematic uncertainty is evaluated from a comparison with the correction factor obtained using events generated with Sherpa 2.2.2 at NLO. The uncertainty is defined as Max(stat error, systematic difference between Sherpa LO and Sherpa 2.2.2 NLO), and cannot be considered correlated bin-to-bin. In the case that the calculations are valid for dressed leptons, a modified correction factor excluding the Born-to-dressed lepton correction should be applied instead. This correction only takes into account the particle-level isolation criteria, and is provided separately here. The Sherpa 2.2.8 NLO cross-sections given below include a small contribution from EW $Z\gamma jj$ production.

The measured fiducial cross section vs $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell\ell\gamma}/m(\ell\ell\gamma)$. The central values are provided along with the statistical and systematic uncertainties together with the sign information. The statistical and "Uncor" uncertainty should be treated as uncorrelated bin-to-bin, while the rest are correlated between bins, and they are written as signed NP variations. The parton-to-particle correction factor $C_{theory}$ is the ratio of the cross-section predicted by Sherpa LO samples at particle level within the fiducial phase-space region defined in Table 4 to the predicted cross-section at parton level within the same fiducial region but with the smooth-cone isolation prescription defined above replacing the particle-level photon isolation criterion, and with Born-level leptons in place of dressed leptons. This correction should be applied on fixed order parton-level calculations. The systematic uncertainty is evaluated from a comparison with the correction factor obtained using events generated with Sherpa 2.2.2 at NLO. The uncertainty is defined as Max(stat error, systematic difference between Sherpa LO and Sherpa 2.2.2 NLO), and cannot be considered correlated bin-to-bin. In the case that the calculations are valid for dressed leptons, a modified correction factor excluding the Born-to-dressed lepton correction should be applied instead. This correction only takes into account the particle-level isolation criteria, and is provided separately here. The Sherpa 2.2.8 NLO cross-sections given below include a small contribution from EW $Z\gamma jj$ production.

The rho distributions for the mixed-flavour category events corresponding to a signal hypothesis with mH = 261 GeV and mA = 150 GeV.

The rho distributions for the same-flavour category events corresponding to a signal hypothesis with mH = 442 GeV and mA = 193 GeV. The signal is normalised to its theoretical cross section.

The rho distributions for the mixed-flavour category events corresponding to a signal hypothesis with mH = 442 GeV and mA = 193 GeV.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction for H(A) -> ZA(H) -> bbbar as a function of mA and mH. The limits are computed using the asymptotic CLs method, combining the ee and μμ channels.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength for the Type-II 2HDM benchmark (tan(beta)=1.5, cos(beta-alpha)=0.01) as a function of mA and mH . The limits are computed using the asymptotic CLs method, combining the ee and μμ channels.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength for the Type-II 2HDM benchmark (mH = 379 GeV and m A = 172 GeV) as a function of tan(beta) and cos(beta-alpha). The limits are computed using the asymptotic CLs method, combining the ee and μμ channels.

P-value for H(A) -> ZA(H) -> bbbar production as a function of mA and mH. The limits are computed using the asymptotic CLs method, combining the ee and μμ channels.

J/psi nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of centrality and rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in 3He+Au collisions as a function of centrality and rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in p+Al MinBias collisions as a function of pT. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in p+Au MinBias collisions as a function of pT. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in 3He+Au MInBias collisions as a function of pT. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in p+Al collisions as a function of pT and centrality at backward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in p+Al collisions as a function of pT and centrality at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of pT and centrality at backward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of pT and centrality at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in 3He+Au collisions as a function of pT and centrality at backward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in 3He+Au collisions as a function of pT and centrality at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in p+Al most central collisions as a function of pT is directly compared with p+Au collisions (Data listed in Table16) at forward and backward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in d+Au and p+Au most central collisions as a function of pT is directly compared at forward and backward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column. Please see PRC 87, 034904 for d+Au data points.

J/psi nuclear modification in 3He+Au most central collisions as a function of pT is directly compared to p+Au collisions (Data listed in Table 16) at forward and backward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in p+Al as a function of N_coll. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of N_coll. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in 3He+Au as a function of N_coll. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in p+Al collisions as a function of nuclear thickness (T_A). The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of nuclear thickness (T_A). The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification in 3He+Au collisions as a function of nuclear thickness (T_A). The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi mean pT squared in p+Al collisions as a function of N_coll. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi mean pT squared in p+Au collisions as a function of N_coll. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi mean pT squared in 3He+Au collisions as a function of N_coll. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi invariant yields as a function of rapidity in small systems. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi invariant yields in p+Al collisions as a function of centrality and rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi invariant yields in p+Au collisions as a function of centrality and apidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi invariant yields in 3He+Au collisions as a function of centrality and rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi invariant yields in p+Al collisions as a function of pT and centrality at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi invariant yields in p+Al collisions as a function of pT and centrality at backward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi invariant yields in p+Au collisions as a function of pT and centrality at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi invariant yields in p+Au collisions as a function of pT and centrality at backward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi invariant yields in 3He+Au collisions as a function of pT and centrality at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi invariant yields in 3He+Au collisions as a function of pT and centrality at backward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.