Measured rapidity differential cross section of coherent Psi(2S) photoproduction in Pb–Pb UPCs events.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the leading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

The distribution of charged particle yields within $|\Delta\varphi| < 1.0$ correlated with the subleading jets as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

The leading jet radial momentum profiles in pp and PbPb collisions and a function of $\Delta r$. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

The leading jet radial momentum profiles in pp and PbPb collisions and a function of $\Delta r$ for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

The leading jet radial momentum profiles in pp and PbPb collisions and a function of $\Delta r$ for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

The leading jet radial momentum profiles in pp and PbPb collisions and a function of $\Delta r$ for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

The leading jet radial momentum profiles in pp and PbPb collisions and a function of $\Delta r$ for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

The leading jet radial momentum profiles in pp and PbPb collisions and a function of $\Delta r$ for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

The leading jet radial momentum profiles in pp and PbPb collisions and a function of $\Delta r$ for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

The leading jet radial momentum profiles in pp and PbPb collisions and a function of $\Delta r$ for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $12 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 300$ GeV. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

The subleading jet radial momentum profiles in pp and PbPb collisions as a function of $\Delta r$. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

The subleading jet radial momentum profiles in pp and PbPb collisions as a function of $\Delta r$ for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

The subleading jet radial momentum profiles in pp and PbPb collisions as a function of $\Delta r$ for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

The subleading jet radial momentum profiles in pp and PbPb collisions as a function of $\Delta r$ for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

The subleading jet radial momentum profiles in pp and PbPb collisions as a function of $\Delta r$ for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

The subleading jet radial momentum profiles in pp and PbPb collisions as a function of $\Delta r$ for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

The subleading jet radial momentum profiles in pp and PbPb collisions as a function of $\Delta r$ for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

The subleading jet radial momentum profiles in pp and PbPb collisions as a function of $\Delta r$ for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $12 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 300$ GeV. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

The ratio between leading jet radial momentum profiles in PbPb and pp collisions as a function of $\Delta r$.

The ratio between subleading jet radial momentum profiles in PbPb and pp collisions as a function of $\Delta r$.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins.

Jet shapes for leading jets in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $12 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 300$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $12 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 300$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $12 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 300$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $12 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 300$ GeV.

Jet shapes for leading jets in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $12 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 300$ GeV.

Ratios of leading jet shapes between PbPb and pp collisions. The results from 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb are compared to pp using several dijet momentum balance selections.

Ratios of leading jet shapes between PbPb and pp collisions. The results from 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb are compared to pp using several dijet momentum balance selections.

Ratios of leading jet shapes between PbPb and pp collisions. The results from 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb are compared to pp using several dijet momentum balance selections.

Ratios of leading jet shapes between PbPb and pp collisions. The results from 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb are compared to pp using several dijet momentum balance selections.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $0.7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 1$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $1 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 2$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $2 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 3$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 4$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 8$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $8 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 12$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $12 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 300$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $12 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 300$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $12 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 300$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in the 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $12 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 300$ GeV.

Jet shapes for subleading jets in pp collisions. The results are shown in different dijet momentum balance bins for the charged particle $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin $12 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch}} < 300$ GeV.

Ratios of subleading jet shapes between PbPb and pp collisions. The results from 0-10 % centrality bin in PbPb are compared to pp using several dijet momentum balance selections.

Ratios of subleading jet shapes between PbPb and pp collisions. The results from 10-30 % centrality bin in PbPb are compared to pp using several dijet momentum balance selections.

Ratios of subleading jet shapes between PbPb and pp collisions. The results from 30-50 % centrality bin in PbPb are compared to pp using several dijet momentum balance selections.

Ratios of subleading jet shapes between PbPb and pp collisions. The results from 50-90 % centrality bin in PbPb are compared to pp using several dijet momentum balance selections.

Ratio between unbalanced selection of leading jet shapes to all leading jet shapes in pp and PbPb collisions. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

Ratio between balanced selection of leading jet shapes to all leading jet shapes in pp and PbPb collisions. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

Ratio between unbalanced selection of subleading jet shapes to all subleading jet shapes in pp and PbPb collisions. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

Ratio between balanced selection of subleading jet shapes to all subleading jet shapes in pp and PbPb collisions. The PbPb results are shown for different centrality regions.

Generator-level vs. reconstructed $x_{j}$ values in the analysis $x_{j}$ bins. The plots show the probability to find a generator level $x_{j}$ for a given reconstructed $x_{j}$.

Generator-level vs. reconstructed $x_{j}$ values in the analysis $x_{j}$ bins. The plots show the probability to find a reconstructed $x_{j}$ for a given generator level $x_{j}$.

Uncorrected double-differential spectra n[h−]raw/dy/dpT of negatively charged hadrons produced in the 5% Ar+Sc collisions with the smallest EPSD energy at beam momenta of 13A, 19A, 30A, 40A, 75A and 150A GeV/c

Uncorrected double-differential spectra n[h−]raw/dy/dpT of negatively charged hadrons produced in the 5% Ar+Sc collisions with the smallest EPSD energy at beam momenta of 13A, 19A, 30A, 40A, 75A and 150A GeV/c

Uncorrected double-differential spectra n[h−]raw/dy/dpT of negatively charged hadrons produced in the 5% Ar+Sc collisions with the smallest EPSD energy at beam momenta of 13A, 19A, 30A, 40A, 75A and 150A GeV/c

Corrected double-differential spectra d2n/dydpT of negatively charged pions produced in the 5% most central Ar+Sc collisions at beam momenta of 13A, 19A, 30A, 40A, 75A and 150A GeV/c

Corrected double-differential spectra d2n/dydpT of negatively charged pions produced in the 5% most central Ar+Sc collisions at beam momenta of 13A, 19A, 30A, 40A, 75A and 150A GeV/c

Corrected double-differential spectra d2n/dydpT of negatively charged pions produced in the 5% most central Ar+Sc collisions at beam momenta of 13A, 19A, 30A, 40A, 75A and 150A GeV/c

Corrected double-differential spectra d2n/dydpT of negatively charged pions produced in the 5% most central Ar+Sc collisions at beam momenta of 13A, 19A, 30A, 40A, 75A and 150A GeV/c

Corrected double-differential spectra d2n/dydpT of negatively charged pions produced in the 5% most central Ar+Sc collisions at beam momenta of 13A, 19A, 30A, 40A, 75A and 150A GeV/c

Corrected double-differential spectra d2n/dydpT of negatively charged pions produced in the 5% most central Ar+Sc collisions at beam momenta of 13A, 19A, 30A, 40A, 75A and 150A GeV/c

Transverse momentum distributions dn/dpT at mid-rapidity for all six beam momenta.

Transverse momentum distributions dn/dpT at mid-rapidity for all six beam momenta.

Transverse momentum distributions dn/dpT at mid-rapidity for all six beam momenta.

Transverse momentum distributions dn/dpT at mid-rapidity for all six beam momenta.

Transverse momentum distributions dn/dpT at mid-rapidity for all six beam momenta.

Transverse momentum distributions dn/dpT at mid-rapidity for all six beam momenta.

Rapidity distributions dn/dy for all six beam momenta obtained by pT integration.

Rapidity distributions dn/dy for all six beam momenta obtained by pT integration.

Rapidity distributions dn/dy for all six beam momenta obtained by pT integration.

Rapidity distributions dn/dy for all six beam momenta obtained by pT integration.

Rapidity distributions dn/dy for all six beam momenta obtained by pT integration.

Rapidity distributions dn/dy for all six beam momenta obtained by pT integration.

Transverse mass spectra at mid-rapidity(0 < y < 0.2).

Transverse mass spectra at mid-rapidity(0 < y < 0.2).

Transverse mass spectra at mid-rapidity(0 < y < 0.2).

Transverse mass spectra at mid-rapidity(0 < y < 0.2).

Transverse mass spectra at mid-rapidity(0 < y < 0.2).

Transverse mass spectra at mid-rapidity(0 < y < 0.2).

The inverse slope parameter T of the transverse mass spectra as a function of rapidity divided by the beam rapidity.

The inverse slope parameter T of the transverse mass spectra as a function of rapidity divided by the beam rapidity.

The inverse slope parameter T of the transverse mass spectra as a function of rapidity divided by the beam rapidity.

The inverse slope parameter T of the transverse mass spectra as a function of rapidity divided by the beam rapidity.

The inverse slope parameter T of the transverse mass spectra as a function of rapidity divided by the beam rapidity.

The inverse slope parameter T of the transverse mass spectra as a function of rapidity divided by the beam rapidity.

Average transverse mass <mT> − mπ at mid-rapidity(0 < y < 0.2) versus the collision energy.

The speed of sound as a function of beam energy as extracted from the data.

The speed of sound as a function of beam energy as extracted from the data.

Cutflow of the preselection requirements (see Section 5) for $\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}$ signals with $m_{\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}}$=0.9, 1.1, and 1.3 TeV, assuming B=1. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow of the signal region requirements in 1$\ell+\geq 1\tau$ channel (see Table 3) for $\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}$ signals with $m_{\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}}$=0.9, 1.1, and 1.3 TeV, assuming B=1. Events that satisfy the preselection requirements are considered. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow of the signal region requirements in the 2$\ell$OS+$\geq 1\tau$ channel (see Table 4) for $\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}$ signals with $m_{\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}}$=0.9, 1.1, and 1.3 TeV, assuming B=1. Events that satisfy the preselection requirements are considered. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow of the signal region requirements in the $2\ell$SS/$3\ell+\geq 1\tau$ channel (see Table 5) for $\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}$ signals with $m_{\mathrm{LQ}_{3}^{\mathrm{d}}}$=0.9, 1.1, and 1.3 TeV, assuming B=1. Events that satisfy the preselection requirements are considered. In this channel, two signal regions (SR-L and SR-H) are defined based on $p_{\mathrm{T}, 1}^{\tau}$, with SR-L and SR-H requiring $125< p_{\mathrm{T}, 1}^{\tau} < 225$ GeV and $p_{\mathrm{T}, 1}^{\tau}>225$ GeV, respectively. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

$D_s^{\pm}$ invariant yield as a function of $p_{T}$ in 40-80% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.5 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

$D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio as a function of $p_{T}$ in 0-10% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.5 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

$D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio as a function of $p_{T}$ in 10-40% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.0 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/c, 2.0 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

$D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio as a function of $p_{T}$ in 40-80% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.5 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

$D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio as a function of $p_{T}$ in 10-20% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.5 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

$D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio as a function of $p_{T}$ in 20-40% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.5 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

The integrated $D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio within 1.5 < $p_{T}$ < 5.0 GeV/c as a function of collision centrality. The centrality bins are 60-80%, 40-60%, 20-40%, 10-20% and 0-10%.

Distribution of $S$, which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $2\ell^{sc}$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Distribution of $E_{T}^{miss}$, which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $3\ell$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Distribution of $\Delta R_{\ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm}}$, which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $3\ell$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Distribution of $m_{x\ell}$ ($x$=3), which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $3\ell$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Distribution of $p_{T}^{leading jet}$, which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $3\ell$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Distribution of $E_{T}^{miss}$, which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $4\ell$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Distribution of $\Delta R_{\ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm}}^{min}$, which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $4\ell$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Distribution of $m_{x\ell}$ ($x$=4), which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $4\ell$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Distribution of $p_{T}^{\ell_{1}}$, which is one of the discriminating variables used to define the $4\ell$ SRs. The events are selected with the preselection requirements listed in Table 4 in the paper. The data (dots) are compared with the expected contributions from the relevant background sources (histograms). The expected signal distributions for $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ are also shown, scaled to the observed number of events. The last bin includes overflows.

Contributions from different categories of uncertainties relative to the expected background yields in the defined SRs, as obtained after performing the likelihood ratio test discussed in Section 9 in the paper. The uncertainties are shown for the combination of the individual channels of the $2\ell^{sc}$, $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ SRs. The SRs are indicated along the horizontal axis. In the HEPData entry, the x-axis is simplified for easier visualisation. The first number indicates the sub channel (2:$2\ell^{sc}$, 3:$3\ell$, 4:$4\ell$), while the second number indicates the mass point (2:200, 3:300, 4:400, 5:500).

Data event yields compared with the expected contributions from relevant background sources, for the combination of the individual channels of the $2\ell^{sc}$, $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ SRs. The total uncertainties in the expected event yields are shown as the hatched bands. The SRs are indicated along the horizontal axis. In the HEPData entry, the x-axis is simplified for easier visualisation. The first number indicates the sub channel (2:$2\ell^{sc}$, 3:$3\ell$, 4:$4\ell$), while the second number indicates the mass point (2:200, 3:300, 4:400, 5:500).

The $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution for the SRs of the $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ signal mass hypothesis, where the selection requirement on $E_{T}^{miss}$ has been removed. In the attached plot, the signals are stacked on top of the backgrounds while individuals contributions of the $2\ell^{sc}$ channel are shown in HEPData. The last bin, isolated by a vertical red dashed line, is inclusive and corresponds to the SR.

The $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution for the SRs of the $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ signal mass hypothesis, where the selection requirement on $E_{T}^{miss}$ has been removed. In the attached plot, the signals are stacked on top of the backgrounds while individuals contributions of the $3\ell$ channel are shown in HEPData. The last bin, isolated by a vertical red dashed line, is inclusive and corresponds to the SR.

The $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution for the SRs of the $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ signal mass hypothesis, where the selection requirement on $E_{T}^{miss}$ has been removed. In the attached plot, the signals are stacked on top of the backgrounds while individuals contributions of the $4\ell$ channel are shown in HEPData. The last bin, isolated by a vertical red dashed line, is inclusive and corresponds to the SR.

Observed and expected upper limits of the $H^{\pm\pm}$ pair production cross section times branching fraction at 95% CL obtained from the combination of 2$\ell^{sc}$, 3$\ell$ and 4$\ell$ channels. The region above the observed limit is excluded by the measurement. The bands represent the expected exclusion curves within one and two standard deviations.

The theoretical prediction of Figure 9(a) in the paper.

Observed and expected upper limits of the $H^{\pm\pm}$ and $H^{\pm}$ production cross section times branching fraction at 95% CL obtained from the combination of 2$\ell^{sc}$, 3$\ell$ and 4$\ell$ channels. The region above the observed limit is excluded by the measurement. The bands represent the expected exclusion curves within one and two standard deviations.

The theoretical prediction of Figure 9(b) in the paper.

Data event yields compared with the estimated background in the $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 200~GeV$ or $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 220~GeV$ SRs. SFOC 0 and SFOC 1,2 refer to the number of same-flavour opposite charge lepton pairs. The total uncertainties in the estimated background yields are shown as the hashed bands. In the HEPData entry, the x-axis is simplified for easier visualisation (1:$e^{\pm}e^{\pm}$, 2:$e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$, 3:$\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$, 4:SFOC 0, 5:SFOC 1,2, 6:$4\ell$).

Data event yields compared with the estimated background in the $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 300~GeV$ or $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 350~GeV$ SRs. SFOC 0 and SFOC 1,2 refer to the number of same-flavour opposite charge lepton pairs. The total uncertainties in the estimated background yields are shown as the hashed bands. In the HEPData entry, the x-axis is simplified for easier visualisation (1:$e^{\pm}e^{\pm}$, 2:$e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$, 3:$\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$, 4:SFOC 0, 5:SFOC 1,2, 6:$4\ell$).

Data event yields compared with the estimated background in the $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 400~GeV$ or $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 450~GeV$ SRs. SFOC 0 and SFOC 1,2 refer to the number of same-flavour opposite charge lepton pairs. The total uncertainties in the estimated background yields are shown as the hashed bands. In the HEPData entry, the x-axis is simplified for easier visualisation (1:$e^{\pm}e^{\pm}$, 2:$e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$, 3:$\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$, 4:SFOC 0, 5:SFOC 1,2, 6:$4\ell$).

Data event yields compared with the estimated background in the $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 500~GeV$ or $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 550~GeV$ or $m_{H^{\pm\pm}} = 600~GeV$ SRs. SFOC 0 and SFOC 1,2 refer to the number of same-flavour opposite charge lepton pairs. The total uncertainties in the estimated background yields are shown as the hashed bands. In the HEPData entry, the x-axis is simplified for easier visualisation (1:$e^{\pm}e^{\pm}$, 2:$e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$, 3:$\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$, 4:SFOC 0, 5:SFOC 1,2, 6:$4\ell$).

Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.

Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.

Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.

Four-body selection. (a) distributions of $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Small\,\Delta m}$ and (b) distribution of $R_{2\ell 4j}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Large\,\Delta m}$ for events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panel indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.

Four-body selection. (a) distributions of $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Small\,\Delta m}$ and (b) distribution of $R_{2\ell 4j}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Large\,\Delta m}$ for events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panel indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the Observed limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Two-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}, DF}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}, SF}$ and $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t} Z}$. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Three-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{VR(1)}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$ and $\mathrm{VR(2)}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Four-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$,$\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $VR^{4-body}_{VV}$ and $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{VV,lll}$. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Two-body selection. Background fit results for the different-flavour leptons binned SRs. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Two-body selection. Background fit results for the same-flavour leptons binned SRs. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Three-body selection. Observed event yields and background fit results for the three-body selection SRs. The ''Others'' category contains contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Four-body selection. Observed event yields and background fit results for SR$^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{\mathrm{Small}\,\Delta m}$ and SR$^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{\mathrm{Large}\,\Delta m}$. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.

Exclusion limits contours (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with 100% branching ratio in $\tilde{t}_1--\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The exclusion limits contours for the two-body, three-body and four-body selections are respectively shown in blue, green and red.

Exclusion limits contours (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with 100% branching ratio in $\tilde{t}_1--\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The exclusion limits contours for the two-body, three-body and four-body selections are respectively shown in blue, green and red.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm 1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty.The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty.The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Four-body selection Efficiency (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Four-body selection Efficiency (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta\ m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Four-body selection acceptance (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Four-body selection acceptance (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Three-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal strenght for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Four-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal strenght for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Three-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Four-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.

Two-body selection. Background fit results for the $inclusive$ SRs. The Others category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=600~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=400~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the scalar signal model $t\bar{t} + \phi $ with $m(\phi)=150~ GeV$ and $m(\chi)=1~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the pseudoscalar signal model $t\bar{t} + a $ with $m(a)=150~ GeV$ and $m(\chi)=1~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=385~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=400~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=430~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=460~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=400~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=380~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=460~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=415~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=400~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=320~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.

95% CL limits on the Lagrangian approach (a.k.a. LEP parametrization) parameters in Wgamma events.