Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lead.\,lep.}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sub-lead.\,lep.}}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sub-lead.\,lep.}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sub-lead.\,lep.}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $|y_{e\mu}|$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $m_{e\mu}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $m_{e\mu}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $m_{e\mu}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $|\Delta\phi_{e\mu}|$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|\Delta\phi_{e\mu}|$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|\Delta\phi_{e\mu}|$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $\cos(\theta^{*})$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $\cos(\theta^{*})$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $\cos(\theta^{*})$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lep}+\mathrm{MET}}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lep}+\mathrm{MET}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lep}+\mathrm{MET}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $m_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $m_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $m_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of the number of jets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable Number of jets ($p_{\mathrm{T}} > $ 30 GeV).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable Number of jets ($p_{\mathrm{T}} > $ 30 GeV).

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $S_{\mathrm{T}}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $S_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $S_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ in the region with 85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ (85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ (85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $|y_{e\mu}|$ in the region with 85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ (85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ (85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ in the region with 150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ (150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ (150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $|y_{e\mu}|$ in the region with 150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ (150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ (150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ in the region with $m_{e\mu}>$ 250, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ ($m_{e\mu}>$ 250).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ ($m_{e\mu}>$ 250).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $|y_{e\mu}|$ in the region with $m_{e\mu}>$ 250, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ ($m_{e\mu}>$ 250).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ ($m_{e\mu}>$ 250).

Measured value of the charge asymmetry, $A_{C}$.

Charge asymmetry $A_C$ measured as a function of the absolute difference of the absolute lepton rapidities $||\eta_{l+}|-|\eta_{l-}||$. The measured values are shown as points, whose error bars represent the statistical uncertainty, while the solid bands indicate the size of the total uncertainty. In the bottom panel, the central value of the charge asymmetry divided by the total uncertainty of the $A_C$ measurement is shown. The measurement is compared with the NNLO+PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO+Pythia8 with vertical lines denoting PDF uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $A_{C}$ vs. $||\eta_{l+}|-|\eta_{l-}||$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $A_{C}$ vs. $||\eta_{l+}|-|\eta_{l-}||$.

Charge asymmetry $A_C$ measured as a function of the invariant mass of the dilepton system $m_{e\mu}$. The measured values are shown as points, whose error bars represent the statistical uncertainty, while the solid bands indicate the size of the total uncertainty. In the bottom panel, the central value of the charge asymmetry divided by the total uncertainty of the $A_C$ measurement is shown. The measurement is compared with the NNLO+PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO+Pythia8 with vertical lines denoting PDF uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $A_{C}$ vs. $m_{e\mu}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $A_{C}$ vs. $m_{e\mu}$.

Measured value of the asymmetry in the CP-odd observable $O_{z}$, $A_{CP}$.

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.

Total invariant mass distribution $m_{4\ell}$ in Signal Region 2.

Selected events in the ($m_{4\ell}$, $\left\langle m_{\ell\ell}\right\rangle$) plane, SR1

Selected events in the ($m_{4\ell}$, $\left\langle m_{\ell\ell}\right\rangle$) plane, SR2

Expected background events in the $(m_{4\ell}, \langle m_{\ell\ell}\rangle)$ plane, SR1

Expected signal shape for $(m_{S}, m_{Z_d}) = (110~\text{GeV},30~\text{GeV}$) in the $(m_{4\ell}, \langle m_{\ell\ell}\rangle)$ plane, SR1. The signal distributions are normalized to unit volume.

Expected background events in the $(m_{4\ell}, \langle m_{\ell\ell}\rangle)$ plane, SR2. Events that satisfy $|m_{ab,cd} - m_Z| < 8~\text{GeV}$ are removed by the Z-veto requirement, however not all events lying behind the mask in the plot, corresponding to $\langle m_{\ell\ell}\rangle$ values between 83 and 99 GeV, are deleted.

Expected signal shape for $(m_{S}, m_{Z_{d}}) = (750~\text{GeV},150~\text{GeV}$) in the $(m_{4\ell}, \langle m_{\ell\ell}\rangle)$ plane, SR2. The signal distributions are normalized to unit volume. Events that satisfy $|m_{ab,cd} - m_Z| < 8~\text{GeV}$ are removed by the Z-veto requirement, however not all events lying behind the mask in the plot, corresponding to $\langle m_{\ell\ell}\rangle$ values between 83 and 99 GeV, are deleted.

Expected 95% CL limit on $\sigma \mathcal{B}(S\rightarrow Z_{d}Z_{d} \rightarrow 4\ell)$, SR1

Observed 95% CL limit on $\sigma \mathcal{B}(S\rightarrow Z_{d}Z_{d} \rightarrow 4\ell)$, SR1

Observed / Expected 95% CL limit ratio in SR1

Expected 95% CL limit on $\mathcal{B}(S\rightarrow Z_{d}Z_{d} \rightarrow 4\ell)$ with Z-veto, SR2

Observed 95% CL limit on $\sigma \mathcal{B}(S\rightarrow Z_{d}Z_{d} \rightarrow 4\ell)$ with Z-veto, SR2

Observed / Expected 95% CL limit ratio with Z-veto, SR2

Local $p_0$-values in the ($m_{S}, m_{Z_{d}}$) plane, SR1

Local $p_0$-values in the ($m_{S}, m_{Z_{d}}$) plane, SR2 with Z-veto applied

Observed data in Signal Region 1 in the $(m_{4\ell}, \langle m_{\ell\ell}\rangle)$ plane.

Observed data in Signal Region 2 in the $(m_{4\ell}, \langle m_{\ell\ell}\rangle)$ plane. Events that satisfy $|m_{ab,cd} - m_Z| < 8~\text{GeV}$ are removed by the Z-veto requirement, however not all events lying behind the mask in the plot, corresponding to <m_ll> values between 83 and 99 GeV, are deleted.

Distributions of the average dilepton mass $\left\langle m_{\ell\ell}\right\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\left(m_{ab} + m_{cd}\right)$ for Signal Region 1 in the $4e$ final state.

Distributions of the average dilepton mass $\left\langle m_{\ell\ell}\right\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\left(m_{ab} + m_{cd}\right)$ for Signal Region 1 in the $2e2\mu$ final state.

Distributions of the average dilepton mass $\left\langle m_{\ell\ell}\right\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\left(m_{ab} + m_{cd}\right)$ for Signal Region 1 in the $4\mu$ final state.

Distributions of the average dilepton mass $\left\langle m_{\ell\ell}\right\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\left(m_{ab} + m_{cd}\right)$ for Signal Region 2 in the $4e$ final state.

Distributions of the average dilepton mass $\left\langle m_{\ell\ell}\right\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\left(m_{ab} + m_{cd}\right)$ for Signal Region 2 in the $2e2\mu$ final state.

Distributions of the average dilepton mass $\left\langle m_{\ell\ell}\right\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\left(m_{ab} + m_{cd}\right)$ for Signal Region 2 in the $4\mu$ final state.

Distributions of the total invariant mass $m_{4\ell}$ for Signal Region 1 in the $4e$ final state. The SR1 requirement $m_{4\ell} < 115~\text{GeV}$ is not applied here.

Distributions of the total invariant mass $m_{4\ell}$ for Signal Region 1 in the $2e2\mu$ final state. The SR1 requirement $m_{4\ell} < 115~\text{GeV}$ is not applied here.

Distributions of the total invariant mass $m_{4\ell}$ for Signal Region 1 in the $4\mu$ final state. The SR1 requirement $m_{4\ell} < 115~\text{GeV}$ is not applied here.

Distributions of the total invariant mass $m_{4\ell}$ for Signal Region 2 in the $4e$ final state.

Distributions of the total invariant mass $m_{4\ell}$ for Signal Region 2 in the $2e2\mu$ final state.

Distributions of the total invariant mass $m_{4\ell}$ for Signal Region 2 in the $4\mu$ final state.

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.

The cutflow table for $N1$ and $N2$ signal samples for different mass points. The samples consist of both $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ final states in equal ratio. Each sample is normalized to a total cross-section of 0.1 pb. The abbreviations used in the table are, SC = Same Charge, SF = Same Flavor.

The cutflow table for $N3$ signal samples for different mass points. The samples consist of both $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ final states in equal ratio. Each sample is normalized to a total cross-section of 10 pb. The abbreviations used in the table are, SS = Same Charge, SF = Same Flavor.

Expected and observed upper limits on the strength of HNL mixing with electron neutrinos

Expected and observed upper limits on the strength of HNL mixing with muon neutrinos

Expected and observed upper limits on the strength of HNL mixing with tau neutrinos

Invariant mass $m_{J}$ of the resonance candidates in the region defined with forward photon $\eta_{\gamma} > 1.3$ and anti-tagged large-$R$ jet after the fit to data under the background-only hypothesis. The total systematic uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Three representative $Z^{`}$ signal distributions are overlaid as red lines. The signal is shown for $g_q=0.2$ with production cross sections of 309 fb, 143 fb, and 34.2 fb for $m_{Z^{`}}=(20,~50,~\text{and}~125~\text{GeV}$), respectively.

Observed (expected) upper exclusion limits at 95$\%$ CL on the coupling strength $g_q$ of a new vector $Z^{`}$ particle decaying to a $q\bar q$ pair for a LHC DM WG benchmark signal model where decay rates for all decay modes except $Z^{`}\to q \bar q$ are set to 0, and the interference between the $Z^{`}$ and the SM $Z$ boson is neglected.

Observed (solid lines) and expected (dashed lines) upper exclusion limits at 95$\%$ CL on the product of the $Z^{`}$ production production cross section, branching ratio for $Z^{`}\to q\bar q$ and acceptance ($\sigma_{Z^{`}}\times B(Z^{`}\to q\bar q)\times A$) of a new $Z^{`}$ resonance for a LHC DM WG benchmark signal model where all decay modes except $Z^{`}\to q \bar q$ are set to 0, and the interference between the $Z^{`}$ and the SM $Z$ boson is neglected.

Data from Figure 1, panel c, $k_{2}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 1, panel c, $k_{2}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 1, panel d, $k_{3}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 1, panel d, $k_{3}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel a, $N_{ch}k_{2}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel a, $N_{ch}k_{2}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel b, $N^{2}_{ch}k_{3}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel b, $N^{2}_{ch}k_{3}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel c, $\Gamma$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel c, $\Gamma$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle / \left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle / \left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $k_{2}/k^{5\%}_{2} vs N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $k_{2}/k^{5\%}_{2} vs N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel c, $k_{3}/k^{5\%}_{3} vs N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel c, $k_{3}/k^{5\%}_{3} vs N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel d, $\Gamma/\Gamma^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel d, $\Gamma/\Gamma^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 2 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 2 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Second Supplementary Figure, Fig 6, panel a, Correlation between FCal $\Sigma E_{T}$ and $N_{ch}$ in Pb+Pb collisions

Data from Second Supplementary Figure, Fig 6, panel b, Correlation between $[p_{T}]$ - $\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}$/$\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ in Pb+Pb collisions

Data from Third Supplementary Figure, Fig 7, Normalized Event distribution of $N_{ch}$ /$N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions

Data from Third Supplementary Figure, Fig 7, Normalized Event distribution of $N_{ch}$ / $N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions

Data from Fourth Supplementary Figure, Fig 8, panel a, $\gamma$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Fourth Supplementary Figure, Fig 8, panel a, $\gamma$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Fourth Supplementary Figure, Fig 8, panel b, $\gamma/\gamma^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Fourth Supplementary Figure, Fig 8, panel b, $\gamma/\gamma^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Fig 1 panel a, Correlation between FCal $\Sigma E_{T}$ and $N_{ch}$ in Xe+Xe collisions

Data from Auxiliary Fig 1 panel b, Correlation between $[p_{T}]$ - $\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}$/$\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ in Xe+Xe collisions

Data from Auxiliary Fig 2 panel b, $N_{ch}$ /$N^{5\%}_{ch}$ vs Centrality [\%] for Pb+Pb collisions

Data from Auxiliary Fig 2 panel b, $N_{ch}$ /$N^{5\%}_{ch}$ vs Centrality [\%] for Xe+Xe collisions

Data from Auxiliary Fig 3 panel b, $[p_{T}]$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 2 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 2 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

The pNN input variable visible transverse momentum $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{vis}}(\mu\tau_{\mathrm{had}})$ is shown in the SR with no cut on the pNN discriminant. The signal shape is normalized to the same integral as the total background prediction. Overflow events are included in the last bins.

The pNN input variable transverse mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}(\mu,E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ is shown in the SR with no cut on the pNN discriminant. The signal shape is normalized to the same integral as the total background prediction. Overflow events are included in the last bins.

The pNN input variable MMC mass $m^{\mathrm{MMC}}(bb\tau\tau)$ is shown in the SR with no cut on the pNN discriminant. The signal shape is normalized to the same integral as the total background prediction. Overflow events are included in the last bins.

Mass distribution of the $\tau^+\tau^-$ system for each of the generated MC signal mass points for the $\mu\tau_{\mathrm{h}}$ category. All distributions are normalized assuming $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=10\%$.

Mass distribution of the $\tau^+\tau^-$ system for each of the generated MC signal mass points for the $e\mu$ category. All distributions are normalized assuming $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=10\%$.

The pNN spectrum in the three bins are shown separately for each mass hypothesis in the ($e\mu$, $1b$) category. The signal shape (normalized to $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=1$) for each corresponding mass hypothesis is overlaid on top of the SM prediction. Bins used for different $m_a$ hypotheses are not statistically independent.

The pNN spectrum in the three bins are shown separately for each mass hypothesis in the ($\mu\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$,$2b$) category. The signal shape (normalized to $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=1$) for each corresponding mass hypothesis is overlaid on top of the SM prediction. Bins used for different $m_a$ hypotheses are not statistically independent.

The pNN spectrum in the three bins are shown separately for each mass hypothesis in the ($e\mu$,$1B$) category. The signal shape (normalized to $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=1$) for each corresponding mass hypothesis is overlaid on top of the SM prediction. Bins used for different $m_a$ hypotheses are not statistically independent.

The pNN spectrum in the three bins are shown separately for each mass hypothesis in the ($e\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$,$2b$) category. The signal shape (normalized to $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=1$) for each corresponding mass hypothesis is overlaid on top of the SM prediction. Bins used for different $m_a$ hypotheses are not statistically independent.

The observed (solid) 95% C.L. upper limits on $(\sigma(H)/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}}(H)) \mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)$ as a function of $m_a$ and the expected (dashed) limits under the background-only hypothesis when combining all categories. The inner green and outer yellow shaded bands show the $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ uncertainties of the expected limits.

The observed (solid) 95% C.L. upper limits on $(\sigma(H)/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}}(H)) \mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)$ as a function of $m_a$ and the expected (dashed) limits under the background-only hypothesis when considering different categories based on the heavy-flavor objects separately. When the category is not used for a mass hypothesis, the limit is listed as zero.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\ell\ell+E_\text{T}^{\text{miss}}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for Multilepton.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for combination.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\ell\ell+E_\text{T}^{\text{miss}}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for Multilepton.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for combination.

Observed and expected 95&percnt; CL upper limits on the signal strength for the inclusive ggF HH production from the bb&#772;&tau;⁺&tau;^-, bb&#772;&gamma;&gamma;, bb&#772;bb&#772;, multilepton and bb&#772;&#8467;&#8467;+E_T^miss decay channels, and their statistical combination. When deriving the limit on &mu;_ggF^HH (&mu;_VBF^HH), the VBF (ggF) HH production cross-section is fixed to the SM predicted value for m_H=125 GeV. The expected limit, along with the &plusmn;1&sigma; and &plusmn;2&sigma; bands, is calculated under the assumption of no HH process and with all NPs profiled to the observed data.

Observed and expected 95&percnt; CL upper limits on the signal strength for the VBF HH production from the bb&#772;&tau;⁺&tau;^-, bb&#772;&gamma;&gamma;, bb&#772;bb&#772;, multilepton and bb&#772;&#8467;&#8467;+E_T^miss decay channels, and their statistical combination. When deriving the limit on &mu;_ggF^HH (&mu;_VBF^HH), the VBF (ggF) HH production cross-section is fixed to the SM predicted value for m_H=125 GeV. The expected limit, along with the &plusmn;1&sigma; and &plusmn;2&sigma; bands, is calculated under the assumption of no HH process and with all NPs profiled to the observed data.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95&percnt; CL on the inclusive ggF and VBF HH production cross-section from the bb&#772;&tau;⁺&tau;^-, bb&#772;&gamma;&gamma;, bb&#772;bb&#772;, multilepton and bb&#772;&#8467;&#8467;+E_T^miss decay channels, and their statistical combination. The Higgs boson mass is set to 125&nbsp;GeV when deriving the predicted SM cross-section (red band). The expected limits, along with the &plusmn;1&sigma; and &plusmn;2&sigma; bands, are calculated under the assumption of no Higgs boson pair production and with all NPs profiled to the observed data.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\ell\ell+E_\text{T}^{\text{miss}}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for Multilepton.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for combination.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\ell\ell+E_\text{T}^{\text{miss}}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for Multilepton.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for combination.

Observed (solid lines) and expected (dashed lines) 95&percnt; CL exclusion limits on the HH production cross-sections of (a) the inclusive ggF and VBF processes as a function of &kappa;_&lambda;, for the bb&#772;&gamma;&gamma; (purple), bb&#772;&tau;⁺&tau;^- (green), multilepton (cyan), bb&#772;bb&#772; (blue) and bb&#772;&#8467;&#8467;+E_T^miss (brown) decay channels and their combination (black). The expected limits assume no HH production. The red line shows the theory prediction for the ggF and VBF HH production cross-section as a function of &kappa;_&lambda;. The bands surrounding the red cross-section lines indicate the theoretical uncertainties on the predicted cross-section.

Observed (solid lines) and expected (dashed lines) 95&percnt; CL exclusion limits on the HH production cross-sections of the VBF process as a function of &kappa;_2V, for the bb&#772;&gamma;&gamma; (purple), bb&#772;&tau;⁺&tau;^- (green), multilepton (cyan), bb&#772;bb&#772; (blue) and bb&#772;&#8467;&#8467;+E_T^miss (brown) decay channels and their combination (black). The expected limits assume no VBF HH production. The ggF HH production cross-section is assumed to be as predicted by the SM. The ggF HH production cross-section is assumed to be as predicted by the SM. The red line shows the predicted VBF HH cross-section as a function of &kappa;_2V. The bands surrounding the red cross-section lines indicate the theoretical uncertainties on the predicted cross-section.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for combination.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for combination.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for combination.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for combination.

Observed and expected 95&percnt; CL combined upper limits on the cross-section for the SM and seven BSM HEFT benchmarks (arXiv:2304.01968 [hep-ph]) in the ggF process, describing representative signal kinematics and m_HH shape features obtained by varying multiple HEFT coefficients. The expected limits from the bb&#772;&tau;⁺&tau;^-, bb&#772;&gamma;&gamma; and bb&#772;bb&#772; decay channels are presented as well. Theoretical predictions, estimated using specific sets of coefficient values defined in the benchmarks, are shown as red cross dots.