Jet pairing efficiencies over the parameter space for the wide-width heavy resonance signals. The pairing efficiency is evaluated in the 6$b$ region when a correct pairing is possible — that is, the six leading jets are geometrically matched to truth-level b-quarks.

Distributions of scores for nonresDNN in 6b data and the background prediction after background-only fits to the observed data. The Low- and High-Score regions are included. Benchmark signal models (normalized to the background) are overlaid: SM HHH signal and non-resonant TRSM signal with $(m_X, m_S)=(400,200)$ GeV.

Distributions of scores for resDNN in 6b data and the background prediction after background-only fits to the observed data. The Low- and High-Score regions are included. A benchmark signal model (normalized to the background) is overlaid: resonant TRSM signal with $(m_X, m_S)=(500,350)$ GeV.

Distributions of scores for heavyresDNN in 6b data and the background prediction after background-only fits to the observed data. The Low- and High-Score regions are included. Benchmark signal models (normalized to the background) are overlaid: heavy-resonant signals with (mX, mS)=(900,325) GeV with a 1% or 20% width.

Expected 95% CL $HHH$ cross section upper limits for the phase space within the perturbative unitarity bounds of the TRSM signals. While the points were generated under Benchmark point 3 of the TRSM, they can also be interpreted in the DM-CPV model.

Observed 95% CL $HHH$ cross section upper limits for the phase space within the perturbative unitarity bounds of the TRSM signals. While the points were generated under Benchmark point 3 of the TRSM, they can also be interpreted in the DM-CPV model.

Expected 95% CL $HHH$ cross section upper limits for the narrow-width (1%) heavy resonance signals.

Expected 95% CL $HHH$ cross section upper limits for the wide-width (20%) heavy resonance signals.

Observed 95% CL $HHH$ cross section upper limits for the narrow-width (1%) heavy resonance signals.

Observed 95% CL $HHH$ cross section upper limits for the wide-width (20%) heavy resonance signals.

Expected 95% CL constraints on $\kappa_3$ and $\kappa_4$, the ratios of the Higgs tri-linear and quartic self-couplings to their predicted SM values.

Expected 68% CL constraints on $\kappa_3$ and $\kappa_4$, the ratios of the Higgs tri-linear and quartic self-couplings to their predicted SM values.

Observed 95% CL constraints on $\kappa_3$ and $\kappa_4$, the ratios of the Higgs tri-linear and quartic self-couplings to their predicted SM values.

Observed 68% CL constraints on $\kappa_3$ and $\kappa_4$, the ratios of the Higgs tri-linear and quartic self-couplings to their predicted SM values.

Unitarity limits, calculated in Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 366, are overlaid in the region bounded by the gray dashed line.

Overall acceptance x efficiency for events entering the 6$b$ region over the parameter space for the TRSM signals. Generator weights, and weights associated to pileup modeling corrections are applied. Jet trigger scale factors, NNJVT scale factors and scale factors associated to the $b$-tagging calibration are applied.

Overall acceptance x efficiency for events entering the 6$b$ region over the parameter space for the narrow-width heavy resonance signals. Generator weights, and weights associated to pileup modeling corrections are applied. Jet trigger scale factors, NNJVT scale factors and scale factors associated to the $b$-tagging calibration are applied.

Overall acceptance x efficiency for events entering the 6$b$ region over the parameter space for the wide-width heavy resonance signals. Generator weights, and weights associated to pileup modeling corrections are applied. Jet trigger scale factors, NNJVT scale factors and scale factors associated to the $b$-tagging calibration are applied.

Expected one-dimensional likelihood scan over the Higgs self-coupling modifier $\kappa_3$. Both of the modifiers are profiled in the profile-likelihood fit, and the likelihood scan keeps $\kappa_4$ fixed at one.

Observed one-dimensional likelihood scan over the Higgs self-coupling modifier $\kappa_3$. Both of the modifiers are profiled in the profile-likelihood fit, and the likelihood scan keeps $\kappa_4$ fixed at one.

Expected one-dimensional likelihood scan over the Higgs self-coupling modifier $\kappa_4$. Both of the modifiers are profiled in the profile-likelihood fit, and the likelihood scan keeps $\kappa_3$ fixed at one.

Observed one-dimensional likelihood scan over the Higgs self-coupling modifier $\kappa_4$. Both of the modifiers are profiled in the profile-likelihood fit, and the likelihood scan keeps $\kappa_3$ fixed at one.

Summary of the impact on the analysis of different sources of systematic uncertainty. The impact is estimated as the absolute value of the difference between the expected upper limit with all sources of uncertainty included and the upper limit with a subset of systematic uncertainties excluded. In the left-hand column, more heavily indented rows are a sub-category of the less indented row above.

Cutflow for selected signal points. Generator weights, and weights associated to pileup modeling corrections are applied from the second row onwards. These weight the SM events assuming the SM cross section, whilst the TRSM and Generic resonance events are weighted to 50 fb. Jet trigger scale factors are applied from the third row onwards. NNJVT scale factors are applied from the fourth row onwards. Scale factors associated to the b-tagging calibration are applied in the last three rows.

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.

90% CL WIMP SDn cross sections, including sensitivities and nuclear structure uncertainties

90% CL WIMP SDp cross sections, including sensitivities and nuclear structure uncertainties

90% CL WIMP SDp cross sections, including sensitivities and nuclear structure uncertainties

Data selection efficiency as a function of nuclear recoil energy

Data selection efficiency as a function of nuclear recoil energy

Data points used in analysis in log_10(S2)-S1 space

Data points used in analysis in log_10(S2)-S1 space

Post-fit $m_\mathrm{MMC}$ distribution in the high-mass SR for the $m_A = 90\,\mathrm{GeV}$ signal mass hypothesis. $m_\mathrm{MMC}$ is the mass reconstructed by the Missing Mass Calculator. Processes contributing to the background Others are $Z/\gamma^* \rightarrow ee/\mu\mu$ and SM Higgs. The subscript on the $A\to\tau\tau$ process indicates the mass of the $A$ boson. otal includes all backgrounds and the signal process. The high-mass Signal Region is defined as: - 1 electron and 1 muon with opposite charge - $p_\mathrm{T}$ requirements of the leptons are a combination of the following: - $p_\mathrm{T}^e > 18\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $p_\mathrm{T}^\mu > 15\,\mathrm{GeV}$ or - $p_\mathrm{T}^e > 10\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $p_\mathrm{T}^\mu > 25\,\mathrm{GeV}$ or - $p_\mathrm{T}^e > 27\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $p_\mathrm{T}^\mu > 10\,\mathrm{GeV}$ - $\vert \eta_e \vert < 2.47$, excluding $1.37 < \vert \eta_e \vert < 1.52$ - $\vert \eta_\mu \vert < 2.7$ - no jets with $b$-quarks - $\Delta R_{\ell\ell} < 1.0$ - $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$ - $m_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{tot} = \sqrt{\left(p_\mathrm{T}^e+p_\mathrm{T}^\mu+E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}\right)^2-\left(\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^{\,e}+\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^{\,\mu}+\vec{E}_\mathrm{T}^{\,\mathrm{miss}}\right)^2} < 65\,\mathrm{GeV}$ - $35\,\mathrm{GeV} < m_\mathrm{MMC} < 130\,\mathrm{GeV}$

Expected and observed $95\%$ CL limits on the production cross-section for $gg\rightarrow A$ times the branching ratio for $A$ decaying into two $\tau$-leptons for $A$ boson masses ranging from $20$ to $90\,\mathrm{GeV}$.

Expected and observed $95\%$ CL limits on the production cross-section for $gg\rightarrow A$ times the branching ratio for $A$ decaying into two $\tau$-leptons for $A$ boson masses ranging from $20$ to $90\,\mathrm{GeV}$.

Expected and observed $95\%$ CL limits on the absolute value of the up-type quark coupling parameter $|\zeta_\mathrm{u}|$ for masses of the $A$ boson ranging from $20$ to $90\,\mathrm{GeV}$.

Expected and observed $95\%$ CL limits on the absolute value of the up-type quark coupling parameter $|\zeta_\mathrm{u}|$ for masses of the $A$ boson ranging from $20$ to $90\,\mathrm{GeV}$.

Observed $p_0$ values for the fits on the production cross-section for $gg\rightarrow A$ times the branching ratio for $A$ decaying into two $\tau$-leptons for $A$ boson masses from $20$ to $90\,\mathrm{GeV}$. For the fit on the up-type quark coupling parameter the $p_0$ values agree up to a precision of $O(10^{-5})$.

Observed $p_0$ values for the fits on the production cross-section for $gg\rightarrow A$ times the branching ratio for $A$ decaying into two $\tau$-leptons for $A$ boson masses from $20$ to $90\,\mathrm{GeV}$. For the fit on the up-type quark coupling parameter the $p_0$ values agree up to a precision of $O(10^{-5})$.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the compressed SUSY simplified model with a bino-like LSP and wino-like NLSPs being considered. These are shown with $\pm1\sigma_\text{exp}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm1\sigma^{\text{SUSY}}_{\text{theory}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the ATLAS searches using the soft lepton signature is illustrated by the blue region while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in grey.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the compressed SUSY simplified model with a bino-like LSP and wino-like NLSPs being considered. These are shown with $\pm1\sigma_ ext{exp}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm1\sigma^{ ext{SUSY}}_{ ext{theory}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the ATLAS searches using the soft lepton signature is illustrated by the blue region while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in grey.

The expected upper limits on the cross-sections at 95% CL for the simplified SUSY model featuring the production of mass-degenerate pairs of wino-like $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$ particles in association with at least two jets. The production modes considered are $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$.

The observed upper limits on the cross-sections at 95% CL for the simplified SUSY model featuring the production of mass-degenerate pairs of wino-like $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$ particles in association with at least two jets. The production modes considered are $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$.

Truth-level signal acceptances in $\text{SR}_\text{2j}$ with BDT score $\in [0.88, 1.0]$. All of the considered production modes ($\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$) are included. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation. The generator-level selections are the same as the ones at reconstruction level.

Truth-level signal acceptances in $\text{SR}_{\geq\text{3j}}$ with BDT score $\in [0.88, 1.0]$. All of the considered production modes ($\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$) are included. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation. The generator-level selections are the same as the ones at reconstruction level.

Signal efficiencies in $\text{SR}_\text{2j}$ with BDT score $\in [0.88, 1.0]$. All of the considered production modes ($\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$) are included. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. The generator-level selections are the same as the ones at reconstruction level.

Signal efficiencies in $\text{SR}_{\geq\text{3j}}$ with BDT score $\in [0.88, 1.0]$. All of the considered production modes ($\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$) are included. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. The generator-level selections are the same as the ones at reconstruction level.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde\chi^0_2) =100~\text{GeV}$ and $\Delta m(\tilde\chi^0_2 / \tilde\chi^\pm_1,\tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.2~\text{GeV}, 1.0~\text{GeV},$ and $5.0~\text{GeV}$. The first number in the column for each mass point corresponds to the signal event yield after applying the associated cut while the second number in parentheses represents the efficiency with respect to the previous cut. All of the production modes are included. The total cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma$) includes the cuts applied at parton level as described in the main text.

Distributions of the $\mathrm{NN^{SvsB}}$ output for data and the expected background after the likelihood fit in the $SR_{cQu --}$ signal region. The post-fit background expectations are shown as filled histograms, the combined pre-fit background expectations are shown as dashed lines. The signal distribution using the Wilson coefficient values $c_{tu}^{(1)}=0.04$, $c_{Qu}^{(1)}=0.1$, $c_{Qu}^{(8)}=0.1$ is shown with a dotted line, normalized to the same number of events as the background.

Summary of the observed and predicted number of events in the five 2$\ell$ control regions. The background prediction is shown after the combined likelihood fit to data under the signal-plus-background hypothesis across all control regions and signal regions. The uncertainties in the total yields are smaller than the sum in quadrature of the uncertainties in the individual contributions due to anti-correlations resulting from the likelihood fit. Int Conv refers to events with photon conversions in the inner detector, while Mat Conv refers to events with photon conversions in the detector material. QMisID refers to events with charge-misidentified lepton.

Summary of the observed and predicted number of events in the four 3$\ell$ control regions. The background prediction is shown after the combined likelihood fit to data under the signal-plus-background hypothesis across all control regions and signal regions. The uncertainties in the total yields are smaller than the sum in quadrature of the uncertainties in the individual contributions due to anti-correlations resulting from the likelihood fit. Int Conv refers to events with photon conversions in the inner detector, while Mat Conv refers to events with photon conversions in the detector material. QMisID refers to events with charge-misidentified lepton.

Comparison of the observed limits on the three WCs to the limit obtained by the ATLAS Run~1 analysis of events with $b$-tagged jets and a same-sign lepton pair [JHEP10(2015)150]. The cross-section limits from that analysis are converted to the limits on the WCs by using the fitted EFT parametrization. The bounds on the WCs are shown at the 68$\%$ CL (solid) and/or 95$\%$ CL (dashed) levels. For the ATLAS Run~1 analysis only the bounds at 95$\%$ CL are available. The vertical bar represents the SM prediction. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$.

Observed lower limits at 95$\%$ confidence level on the scale of new physics $\Lambda$ for Wilson coefficient values of 0.01, 1 and $4\pi^2$. The limits are compared with the limits obtained by the ATLAS Run~1 analysis of events with $b$-tagged jets and a same-sign lepton pair.

Observed and expected limits at 95$\%$ confidence level on the cross-section of $\sigma(pp \rightarrow tt)$.

2D likelihood scans of the Wilson coefficients $c_{tu}^{(1)}$ versus $c_{Qu}^{(1)}$. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient pair.

2D likelihood scans of the Wilson coefficients $c_{tu}^{(1)}$ versus $c_{Qu}^{(8)}$. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient pair.

2D likelihood scans of the Wilson coefficients $c_{Qu}^{(1)}$ versus $c_{Qu}^{(8)}$. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient pair.

1D-likelihood scan for $c_{tu}^{(1)}$. The observed and expected limits at 68\% and 95\% confidence level (CL) can be read off by finding the intersection of the likelihood scan curve with the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ lines. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient value.

1D-likelihood scan for $c_{Qu}^{(1)}$. The observed and expected limits at 68\% and 95\% confidence level (CL) can be read off by finding the intersection of the likelihood scan curve with the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ lines. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient value.

1D-likelihood scan for $c_{Qu}^{(8)}$. The observed and expected limits at 68\% and 95\% confidence level (CL) can be read off by finding the intersection of the likelihood scan curve with the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ lines. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient value.

Post-fit distribution of the GNN score evaluated with $m_{H/A}$ = 400 GeV in the validation region in the 2LOS region with $\geq 8$ jets. These regions do not enter the fit. The post-fit background prediction is obtained using the post-fit nuisance parameters from the background-only fit in the control and signal regions.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times branching ratio,$ \sigma(pp \rightarrow t\bar{t}H/A ) \times B(H/A \rightarrow t\bar{t})$, as a function of $m_{H/A}$, obtained using the 1L/2LOS final states.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario where both the scalar $H$ and pseudo-scalar $A$ contribute with $m_H = m_A$ is shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario with the contribution from scalar $H$ only is shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario with the contribution from pseudo-scalar $A$ only is shown.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times branching ratio,$ \sigma(pp \rightarrow t\bar{t}H/A ) \times B(H/A \rightarrow t\bar{t})$, as a function of $m_{H/A}$, obtained from the combination of the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML final states.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario where both the scalar $H$ and pseudo-scalar $A$ contribute with $m_H = m_A$ is shown.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario with the contribution from scalar $H$ only is shown.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario with the contribution from pseudo-scalar $A$ only is shown.

Expected and Observed 95% CL upper limits on the $ \sigma(pp \rightarrow t\bar{t})\times B(S_8\rightarrow t\bar{t})$ production cross-section as a function of $m_{S_8}$, obtained from the combination of the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML final states. The expected limits from the individual 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML analyses are also shown.

Post-fit distribution of the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A}$ = 700 GeV in the 1L region with $\geq 10$ jets and four $b$-tagged jets. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis.

Post-fit distribution of the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A}$ = 700 GeV in the 2LOS region with $\geq 8$ jets and $\geq 4$ $b$-tagged jets. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis.

Post-fit distribution of the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A}=$1000 GeV,in the 1L region with $\geq 10$ jets four $b$-tagged jets. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis.

Post-fit distribution of the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A}=$1000 GeV in the 2LOS region with $\geq 8$ jets and $\geq 4$ $b$-tagged jets. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, Sum of the pcb scores of the six jets with the highest scores ($\sum_{i\in[1,6]}\mathrm{pcb}_i$), in the region where the training is performed, i.e., the region with $\geq 9$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 1L channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, Sum of the pcb scores of the six jets with the highest scores ($\sum_{i\in[1,6]}\mathrm{pcb}_i$), in the region where the training is performed i.e.the region with $\geq 7$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 2LOS channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ sum of all reconstructed leptons and jets ($\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{all}}$), in the region where the training is performed, i.e., the region with $\geq 9$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 1L channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ sum of all reconstructed leptons and jets ($\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{all}}$), in the region where the training is performed, i.e. the region with $\geq 7$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 2LOS channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, Number of jets, in the region where the training is performed, i.e., the region with $\geq 9$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 1L channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, Number of jets, in the region where the training is performed, i.e., the region with $\geq 7$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 2LOS channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.