Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp-1c.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp-1c.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying into charm quarks and neutralinos for the fit with the best expected CL$_\mathrm{S}$.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section $(-1\sigma)$ for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the minimal coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section $(+1\sigma)$ for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the minimal coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the minimal coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the minimal coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section $(-1\sigma)$ for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section $(+1\sigma)$ for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Distribution of $R_{\mathrm{ISR}}$ in SR-Comp-1c showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(450,430)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}\mathrm{ Sig.}$ in SR-HM1 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(1000,1)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{min}}(c)$ in SR-HM2 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(750,450)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $R_{\mathrm{ISR}}$ in SR-Comp1 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(600,550)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $R_{\mathrm{ISR}}$ in SR-Comp2 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(550,470)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $R_{\mathrm{ISR}}$ in SR-Comp3 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(550,375)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp-1c.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp1.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp2.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp3.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp-1c.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp1.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp2.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp3.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc.

Cutflow table for SR-Comp-1c using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (450,430)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-Comp1 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (600,550)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-Comp2 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (550,470)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-Comp3 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (550,375)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM1 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (1000,1)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM2 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (750,450)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM3 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (750,450)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM-Disc using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (750,450)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM1 using the $m(\mathrm{LQ}_{21}^\mathrm{u}) = 600$ GeV signal point, with a 50% branching fraction to $c\nu$, as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM2 using the $m(\mathrm{LQ}_{21}^\mathrm{u}) = 600$ GeV signal point, with a 50% branching fraction to $c\nu$, as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM3 using the $m(\mathrm{LQ}_{21}^\mathrm{u}) = 600$ GeV signal point, with a 50% branching fraction to $c\nu$, as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM-Disc using the $m(\mathrm{LQ}_{21}^\mathrm{u}) = 600$ GeV signal point, with a 50% branching fraction to $c\nu$, as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

90% CL observed contour for U1B model

90% CL observed contour for up-philic model

90% CL observed contour for 2HDM model

90% CL observed contour for Dark Photon model

HF Fraction at $1.2 < |\eta| < 2.0$ Top Muon Rich Data

HF Fraction at $1.2 < |\eta| < 2.0$ Bottom Ratio

Charged Hadron $v_2$; $1.2 < |\eta| < 2.0$

Charged Hadron; $1.2 < |\eta| < 2.0$

HF -> $\mu$; $1.2 < |\eta| < 2.0$

HF -> $e$; $|\eta| < 0.35$

JPSI v2 in Au+Au collisions as a function of pT (GeV/c) for 10%--40% centrality with pT binned by [0, 2], [2, 5], and [5, 10] GeV/c.

Self-normalised ZN energy as a function of the self-normalised charged-particle-multiplicity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the high-ZN-energy classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes).

Self-normalised ZN energy as a function of the self-normalised charged-particle-multiplicity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the low-ZN-energy classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes).

$K^{0}_{S}$ transverse momentum spectrum in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the high-ZN-energy classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes).

$\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$ transverse momentum spectrum in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the high-ZN-energy classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes).

$\Xi^{-}+\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ transverse momentum spectrum in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the high-ZN-energy classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes).

$K^{0}_{S}$ transverse momentum yield ratios to class III in the high-ZN-energy classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV.

$\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$ transverse momentum yield ratios to class III in the high-ZN-energy classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV.

$\Xi^{-}+\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ transverse momentum yield ratios to class III in the high-ZN-energy classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV.

$K^{0}_{S}$ transverse momentum spectrum in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the high-local-multiplicity classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes).

$\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$ transverse momentum spectrum in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the high-local-multiplicity classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes).

$\Xi^{-}+\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ transverse momentum spectrum in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the high-local-multiplicity classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes).

$K^{0}_{S}$ transverse momentum yield ratios to class IV in the high-local-multiplicity classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV.

$\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$ transverse momentum yield ratios to class IV in the high-local-multiplicity classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV.

$\Xi^{-}+\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ transverse momentum yield ratios to class IV in the high-local-multiplicity classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV.

Self-normalised yield ratios of $K^{0}_{S}$, $\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$, and $\Xi^{-}+\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ as a function of the self-normalised charged-particle multiplicity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the standalone classification (V0M event classes).

Self-normalised yield ratios of $K^{0}_{S}$, $\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$, and $\Xi^{-}+\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ as a function of the self-normalised $ZN$ signal in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the standalone classification (V0M event classes).

Self-normalised yield ratios of $K^{0}_{S}$, $\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$, and $\Xi^{-}+\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ as a function of the self-normalised charged-particle multiplicity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the high-local-multiplicity classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes).

Self-normalised yield ratios of $K^{0}_{S}$, $\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$, and $\Xi^{-}+\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ as a function of the self-normalised charged-particle multiplicity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the low-local-multiplicity classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes).

Self-normalised yield ratios of $K^{0}_{S}$, $\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$, and $\Xi^{-}+\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ as a function of the self-normalised charged-particle multiplicity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the high-ZN-energy classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes).

Self-normalised yield ratios of $K^{0}_{S}$, $\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$, and $\Xi^{-}+\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ as a function of the self-normalised charged-particle multiplicity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the low-ZN-energy classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes).

Self-normalised yield ratios of $K^{0}_{S}$, $\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$, and $\Xi^{-}+\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ as a function of the self-normalised $ZN$ signal in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the high-local-multiplicity classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes).

Self-normalised yield ratios of $K^{0}_{S}$, $\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$, and $\Xi^{-}+\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ as a function of the self-normalised $ZN$ signal in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the low-local-multiplicity classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes).

Self-normalised yield ratios of $K^{0}_{S}$, $\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$, and $\Xi^{-}+\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ as a function of the self-normalised $ZN$ signal in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the high-ZN-energy classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes).

Self-normalised yield ratios of $K^{0}_{S}$, $\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$, and $\Xi^{-}+\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ as a function of the self-normalised $ZN$ signal in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in the low-ZN-energy classification (V0M+SPDClusters event classes).

Groomed relative transverse momentum, $k_{\text{T,g}}$, spectra measured in pp collisions. $60 < p_{\text{T,ch jet}}^{\text{}} < 80\:\text{GeV}/c$, Soft drop $z_{\text{cut}} = 0.2$, $\beta = 0$ For the "trk eff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$) denote correlation across bins. For the remaining sources ("unfold"), no correlation information is specified (i.e. $\pm$ is always used). In the publication, the quadrature sum of all sources of systematic uncertainty is reported, neglecting the sign information reported here.

Groomed relative transverse momentum, $k_{\text{T,g}}$, spectra measured in 30--50% Pb-Pb collisions. $60 < p_{\text{T,ch jet}}^{\text{}} < 80\:\text{GeV}/c$, Soft drop $z_{\text{cut}} = 0.2$, $\beta = 0$ For the "trk eff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$) denote correlation across bins. For the remaining sources ("unfold,bkg,non_closure"), no correlation information is specified (i.e. $\pm$ is always used). In the publication, the quadrature sum of all sources of systematic uncertainty is reported, neglecting the sign information reported here.

Groomed relative transverse momentum, $k_{\text{T,g}}$, spectra measured in 0--10% Pb-Pb collisions. $60 < p_{\text{T,ch jet}}^{\text{}} < 80\:\text{GeV}/c$, Soft drop $z_{\text{cut}} = 0.2$, $\beta = 0$ For the "trk eff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$) denote correlation across bins. For the remaining sources ("unfold,bkg,non_closure"), no correlation information is specified (i.e. $\pm$ is always used). In the publication, the quadrature sum of all sources of systematic uncertainty is reported, neglecting the sign information reported here.

Groomed $k_{\text{T,g}}$ ratio of 30--50% Pb-Pb to pp collisions. $60 < p_{\text{T,ch jet}}^{\text{}} < 80\:\text{GeV}/c$, Dynamical grooming $a = 1.0$ For the "trk eff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$) denote correlation across bins. For the remaining sources "(unfold,bkg,non_closure)", no correlation information is specified (i.e. $\pm$ is always used). In the publication, the quadrature sum of all sources of systematic uncertainty is reported, neglecting the sign information reported here.

Groomed $k_{\text{T,g}}$ ratio of 0--10% Pb-Pb to pp collisions. $60 < p_{\text{T,ch jet}}^{\text{}} < 80\:\text{GeV}/c$, Dynamical grooming $a = 1.0$ For the "trk eff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$) denote correlation across bins. For the remaining sources "(unfold,bkg,non_closure)", no correlation information is specified (i.e. $\pm$ is always used). In the publication, the quadrature sum of all sources of systematic uncertainty is reported, neglecting the sign information reported here.

Groomed $k_{\text{T,g}}$ ratio of 30--50% Pb-Pb to pp collisions. $60 < p_{\text{T,ch jet}}^{\text{}} < 80\:\text{GeV}/c$, Soft drop $z_{\text{cut}} = 0.2$, $\beta = 0$ For the "trk eff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$) denote correlation across bins. For the remaining sources "(unfold,bkg,non_closure)", no correlation information is specified (i.e. $\pm$ is always used). In the publication, the quadrature sum of all sources of systematic uncertainty is reported, neglecting the sign information reported here.

Groomed $k_{\text{T,g}}$ ratio of 0--10% Pb-Pb to pp collisions. $60 < p_{\text{T,ch jet}}^{\text{}} < 80\:\text{GeV}/c$, Soft drop $z_{\text{cut}} = 0.2$, $\beta = 0$ For the "trk eff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$) denote correlation across bins. For the remaining sources "(unfold,bkg,non_closure)", no correlation information is specified (i.e. $\pm$ is always used). In the publication, the quadrature sum of all sources of systematic uncertainty is reported, neglecting the sign information reported here.

Isolated-photon cross section ratio of pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13~\mathrm{TeV}$ over $\sqrt{s}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$ in data (left column) and NLO pQCD calculation from JETPHOX (right column) for $R=0.4$. Data statistical and systematic uncertainties are provided. The theory scale and PDF uncertainties are provided. The data normalisation uncertainty is provided in the paper.

Isolated-photon cross section ratio of pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7~\mathrm{TeV}$ over $\sqrt{s}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$ in data (left column) and NLO pQCD calculation from JETPHOX (right column) for $R=0.4$. Data statistical and systematic uncertainties are provided. The theory scale and PDF uncertainties are provided. The data normalisation uncertainty is provided in the paper.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{\rm AA}$) of isolated photons for Pb$-$Pb and pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$. $R_{\rm AA}$ obtained with a cone size value of $R=0.2$. Each column for each Pb$-$Pb collisions centrality class. The last column for the NLO pQCD JETPHOX calculations, Pb$-$Pb (nPDF) over pp (PDF). Data statistical and systematic uncertainties are provided. The theory scale and PDF uncertainties are provided.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{\rm AA}$) of isolated photons for Pb$-$Pb and pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$. $R_{\rm AA}$ obtained with a cone size value of $R=0.4$. Each column for each Pb$-$Pb collisions centrality class. The last column for the NLO pQCD JETPHOX calculations, Pb$-$Pb (nPDF) over pp (PDF). Data statistical and systematic uncertainties are provided. The theory scale and PDF uncertainties are provided.

Ratios $R_{\rm CSP}$ and $R_{\rm CSC}$ of isolated photons cross sections in data for Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$. $R_{\rm CSP}$, ratio central over semi-peripheral collisions 50$-$70%. $R_{\rm CSC}$, ratio central over semi-central collisions 30$-$50%. Ratios obtained with a cone size value of $R=0.2$. Data statistical and systematic uncertainties are provided.

Ratios $R_{\rm CSP}$ and $R_{\rm CSC}$ of isolated photons cross sections in data for Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02~\mathrm{TeV}$. $R_{\rm CSP}$, ratio central over semi-peripheral collisions 50$-$70%. $R_{\rm CSC}$, ratio central over semi-central collisions 30$-$50%. Ratios obtained with a cone size value of $R=0.4$. Data statistical and systematic uncertainties are provided.