Observed 95% $\text{CL}_\text{S}$ upper limits on the production cross-section times acceptance times branching ratio to jets, $\sigma \cdot A \cdot \text{BR}$, of Gaussian-shaped signals of 5%, 10%, and 15% width relative to their peak mass, $m_G$. Also included are the corresponding expected upper limits predicted for the case the $m_{jj}$ distribution is observed to be identical to the background prediction in each bin and the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ envelopes of outcomes expected for Poisson fluctuations around the background expectation. Limits are derived from the J100 signal region.

Observed 95% $\text{CL}_\text{S}$ upper limits on the the value of the coupling to quarks, $g_q$, of the $Z^\prime$ model as a function of the resonance mass $m_{Z^\prime}$. Also included are the corresponding expected upper limits predicted for the case the $m_{jj}$ distribution is observed to be identical to the background prediction in each bin and the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ envelopes of outcomes expected for Poisson fluctuations around the background expectation. Limits are derived from the J50 signal region.

Observed 95% $\text{CL}_\text{S}$ upper limits on the the value of the coupling to quarks, $g_q$, of the $Z^\prime$ model as a function of the resonance mass $m_{Z^\prime}$. Also included are the corresponding expected upper limits predicted for the case the $m_{jj}$ distribution is observed to be identical to the background prediction in each bin and the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ envelopes of outcomes expected for Poisson fluctuations around the background expectation. Limits are derived from the J100 signal region.

Acceptance of simulated $Z^\prime$ signal events given the analysis event selection as a function of $m_{Z^\prime}$. The solid black line corresponds to the acceptance without a lower $m_{jj}$ requirement applied, the solid blue line includes the $m_{jj} > 344$ GeV requirement of the J50 signal region, and the solid red line includes the $m_{jj} > 481$ GeV requirement of the J100 signal region.

Numbers of events in each of the two considered datasets after consecutively applying the analysis selections.

Predictions of a leading order (LO) QCD simulation, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. The number of events are examined within bins of the four-jet mass and the ratio $\alpha$, which is the average dijet mass divided by the four-jet mass.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\overline{m}_{\mathrm{2j}}$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 1.5% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\overline{m}_{\mathrm{2j}}$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 5% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\overline{m}_{\mathrm{2j}}$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 10% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\alpha$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 1.5% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\alpha$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 5% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\alpha$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 10% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

Signal differential distributions as a function of four-jet mass for $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, diquark masses of 2, 5, 8.6 TeV and various widths, for all $\alpha$ bins inclusively. The integral of each distribution has been normalized to unity.

The product of acceptance, $A$, and efficiency, $\varepsilon$, of a resonant signal with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25 vs. the diquark mass for various diquark widths, and for all $\alpha$ bins inclusively. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of generated events passing the kinematic selection criteria, while the efficiency is the fraction of signal events satisfying $m_{\mathrm{4j}} > 1.6$ TeV. We also show the signal acceptance alone in the curves where $\varepsilon = 1$.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV, and $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5%, 10% are also shown, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV, and $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5%, 10% are also shown, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV and $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.29, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 3.6 TeV, each shown for widths of $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5% and 10% are also included, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV and $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.29, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 3.6 TeV, each shown for widths of $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5% and 10% are also included, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV and $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.29, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 3.6 TeV, each shown for widths of $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5% and 10% are also included, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV, and $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5%, 10% are also shown, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The inclusive four-jet mass distribution in data for $\alpha$ > 0.10, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-5p, PowExp-5p and ModDijet-5p), each with five free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV and $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.29, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 3.6 TeV, each shown for widths of $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5% and 10% are also included, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.25$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 1.5%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.25$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 5%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 5%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.25$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.11$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.13$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.15$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.17$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.19$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.21$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.23$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.27$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.29$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.31$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.33$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.42$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.11$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.13$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.15$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.17$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.19$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.21$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.23$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.27$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.29$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.31$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.33$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.42$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

Observed local $p$-value for a four-jet resonance, Y, decaying to a pair of dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}}/M_{\mathrm{Y}}$ = 0.25, and various widths of Y superimposed.

Observed local $p$-value for a four-jet resonance, Y, decaying to a pair of dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}}/M_{\mathrm{Y}}$ = 0.29, and various widths of Y superimposed.

The table presents the cumulative cutflow for a signal with $M_{\mathrm{S}} = 2.0$ TeV, $M_{\chi} = 0.5$ TeV and different width hypotheses ($\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}} =$ 1.5, 5, and 10%). Each row corresponds to the number of signal events that survive all cuts up to and including the one listed. The percentage in parentheses shows the efficiency of the current cut alone, defined as the ratio of the number of events that survive all cuts up to and including this one to the number of events that survived all previous cuts.

The table presents the cumulative cutflow for a signal with $M_{\mathrm{S}} = 5.0$ TeV, $M_{\chi} = 1.25$ TeV and different width hypotheses ($\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}} =$ 1.5, 5, and 10%). Each row corresponds to the number of signal events that survive all cuts up to and including the one listed. The percentage in parentheses shows the efficiency of the current cut alone, defined as the ratio of the number of events that survive all cuts up to and including this one to the number of events that survived all previous cuts.

The table presents the cumulative cutflow for a signal with $M_{\mathrm{S}} = 8.6$ TeV, $M_{\chi} = 2.15$ TeV and different width hypotheses ($\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}} =$ 1.5, 5, and 10%). Each row corresponds to the number of signal events that survive all cuts up to and including the one listed. The percentage in parentheses shows the efficiency of the current cut alone, defined as the ratio of the number of events that survive all cuts up to and including this one to the number of events that survived all previous cuts.

Distribution of $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ in SROS-on-b-$e\mu\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $m_{\text{T}}^{\text{min}}$ in SROS-on-b-$e\mu\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ in SRSS-$2\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Observed ($N_{\text{obs}}$) and expected ($N_{\text{exp}}$) yields after the background-only fit for the flavor-merged inclusive SRs. The third and fourth columns list the 95\% CL upper limits on the visible cross-section ($\sigma_{\text{vis}}^{95}$) and on the number of signal events ($S_\text{obs}^{95}$). The fifth column ($S_\text{exp}^{95}$) shows the 95\% CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number of background events and its $\pm 1\sigma$ variations. The last two columns indicate the CL$_{\text{b}}$ value, i.e. the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis, and the discovery $p$-value ($p(s = 0)$) with its associated statistical significance $Z$. If the observed yield is below the expected yield, the $p$-value is capped at 0.5.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Distribution of $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ in SROS-off-b-$e\mu\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. Ratio values outside the graph range are indicated by brown arrows. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $m_{\text{T}}^{\text{min}}$ in SROS-off-b-$e\mu\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. Ratio values outside the graph range are indicated by brown arrows. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ in SRSS-$eee$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. Ratio values outside the graph range are indicated by brown arrows. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ in SRSS-$ee\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. Ratio values outside the graph range are indicated by brown arrows. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

The expected upper limits on the cross-section for each signal point. The gray numbers represent the values. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid. An asymptotic approximation is employed in the CL$_{\text{s}}$ calculation instead of the full calculation using pseudo-experiments.

The observed upper limits on the cross-section for each signal point. The gray numbers represent the values. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid. An asymptotic approximation is employed in the CL$_{\text{s}}$ calculation instead of the full calculation using pseudo-experiments.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Summary of the number of events passing each selection for the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}^0_3,\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=(300, 200, 100)$, $(550, 300, 100)$, $(450, 180, 100)$ GeV signal points, including all production processes. After the initial selections, the table is split into row blocks per inclusive region, and then further for each SR channel. Flavor-binned SRs are shown for SROS-on-b for reference. The generator level selections require to have two or more leptons.

Summary of the number of events passing each selection for the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}^0_3,\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=(300, 200, 100)$, $(550, 300, 100)$, $(450, 180, 100)$ GeV signal points, including all production processes. After the initial selections, the table is split into row blocks per inclusive region, and then further for each SR channel. Flavor-binned SRs are shown for SROS-off-b for reference. The generator level selections require to have two or more leptons.

Summary of the number of events passing each selection for the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}^0_3,\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=(300, 200, 100)$, $(550, 300, 100)$, $(450, 180, 100)$ GeV signal points, including all production processes. After the initial selections, the table is split into row blocks per inclusive region, and then further for each SR channel. Flavor-binned SRs are shown. The generator level selections require to have two or more leptons.

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in ditau 2016 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in ditau 2017 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in ditau 2018 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in mutau 2016 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in mutau 2017 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in mutau 2018 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in mutau 2016 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in mutau 2017 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in mutau 2018 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in etau 2016 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in etau 2017 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in etau 2018 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in etau 2016 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in etau 2017 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in etau 2018 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in emu 2016 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in emu 2017 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in emu 2018 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in emu 2016 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in emu 2017 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in emu 2018 channel for different signal scenarios

Observed and expected background yields for different mass ranges in the mutau channel. The quoted uncertainty includes both the statistical and the systematic components. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Observed and expected background yields for different mass ranges in the ditau channel. The quoted uncertainty includes both the statistical and the systematic components. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Observed and expected background yields for different mass ranges in the etau channel. The quoted uncertainty includes both the statistical and the systematic components. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Observed and expected background yields for different mass ranges in the emu channel. The quoted uncertainty includes both the statistical and the systematic components. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 0.1.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 0.25.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 0.50.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 0.75.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 1.0.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 0.1.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 0.25.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 0.50.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 0.75.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 1.0.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 0.1.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 0.25.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 0.50.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 0.75.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 1.0.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 0.1.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 0.25.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 0.50.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 0.75.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 1.0.$

Cross sections for different signal models for VBF Z'. To calculate cross section for branching fraction (br) 0.20 and kV = 0.1, subsitute the values in (br {x} $\kappa_{V}^{2}$ {x} xsec)

Combined 95% CL lower limits on m(Z') as a function of the Z' branching fraction to tautau for g_(1,2)=0 scenario. The observed limits corresponding to $\kappa_V$ equal to 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 are shown here.

Combined 95% CL lower limits on m(Z') as a function of the Z' branching fraction to tautau for g_(1,2)=1 scenario. The observed limits corresponding to $\kappa_V$ equal to 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 are shown here.

Combined 95% CL lower limits on m(Z') as a function of the Z' branching fraction to WW for g_(1,2)=0 scenario. The observed limits corresponding to $\kappa_V$ equal to 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 are shown here.

Combined 95% CL lower limits on m(Z') as a function of the Z' branching fraction to WW for g_(1,2)=1 scenario. The observed limits corresponding to $\kappa_V$ equal to 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 are shown here.

Cutflow for signal samples in the muon-tau channel for 2016 signal samples. Each entry other than the total is the relative efficiency with respect to the previous selection.

Cutflow for signal samples in the muon-tau channel for 2017 signal samples. Each entry other than the total is the relative efficiency with respect to the previous selection.

Cutflow for signal samples in the muon-tau channel for 2018 signal samples. Each entry other than the total is the relative efficiency with respect to the previous selection.

Cutflow for signal samples in the electron-tau channel for 2016 signal samples. Each entry other than the total is the relative efficiency with respect to the previous selection.

Cutflow for signal samples in the electron-tau channel for 2017 signal samples. Each entry other than the total is the relative efficiency with respect to the previous selection.

Cutflow for signal samples in the electron-tau channel for 2018 signal samples. Each entry other than the total is the relative efficiency with respect to the previous selection.

Yields for the muon-tau channel in 2016 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Yields for the muon-tau channel in 2017 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Yields for the muon-tau channel in 2018 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Yields for the electron-tau channel in 2016 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Yields for the electron-tau channel in 2017 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Yields for the electron-tau channel in 2018 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Yields for the di-tau channel in 2016 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Yields for the di-tau channel in 2017 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Yields for the di-tau channel in 2018 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Covariance matrix for all bins and all channels used in the background-only fit of this analysis. There are the e-tau, the mu-tau, and the tau-tau analysis channels, each present for 2016, 2017, and 2018. Each has 6 bins in the reconstructed mass (mrec[GeV]) indicated with their borders in the bin naming. The bin labels have channel name, year name, then bin name.

95% confidence level expected limit with 1 and 2 sigma uncertainties, as well as observed limits on Z' model cross section times branching ratio to di-tau in the e-tau channel.

95% confidence level expected limit with 1 and 2 sigma uncertainties, as well as observed limits on Z' model cross section times branching ratio to di-tau in the mu-tau channel.

95% confidence level expected limit with 1 and 2 sigma uncertainties, as well as observed limits on Z' model cross section times branching ratio to ditau in the ditau channel.

95% confidence level expected limit with 1 and 2 sigma uncertainties, as well as observed limits on Z' model cross section times branching ratio to ditau for the combination of all channels.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for pp->tbH(->Wh) as function of the charged Higgs boson mass for the resolved qqbb signal region.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for pp->tbH(->Wh) as function of the charged Higgs boson mass for the resolved lvbb signal region.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for pp->tbH(->Wh) as function of the charged Higgs boson mass for the merged lvbb signal region

Product of acceptance and efficiency for pp->tbH(->Wh) as function of the charged Higgs boson mass for the merged qqbb signal region

Distributions of the mWh observable in the low-purity signal regions of the resolved qqbb 5jex3bex event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the low-purity signal regions of the resolved qqbb 5jex4bin event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the low-purity signal regions of the resolved qqbb 6jin3bex event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the low-purity signal regions of the resolved qqbb 6jin4bin event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the high-purity signal regions of the resolved qqbb 5jex3bex event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the high-purity signal regions of the resolved qqbb 5jex4bin event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the high-purity signal regions of the resolved qqbb 6jin3bex event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the high-purity signal regions of the resolved qqbb 6jin4bin event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the signal regions of the resolved lvbb 5jex3bex event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the signal regions of the resolved lvbb 5jex4bin event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the signal regions of the resolved lvbb 6jin3bex event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

Distributions of the mWh observable in the signal regions of the resolved lvbb 6jin4bin event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The distributions are presented after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contribution assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 700 GeV, normalised to the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) of 0.064 pb, is shown as a dashed histogram.

The mWh distributions in the Low-NN-score SRs of the merged qqbb 0b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the Low-NN-score SRs of the merged qqbb 1b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the High-NN-score SRs of the merged qqbb 0b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the High-NN-score SRs of the merged qqbb 1b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the Low-NN-score SRs of the merged lvbb 0b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the Low-NN-score SRs of the merged lvbb 1b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the Medium-NN-score SRs of the merged lvbb 0b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the Medium-NN-score SRs of the merged lvbb 1b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the High-NN-score SRs of the merged lvbb 0b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

The mWh distributions in the High-NN-score SRs of the merged lvbb 1b event categories. The term ‘Others’ summarises events from tHjb, tWh, tttt, and SM Vh production. The background prediction is shown after a background-only maximum-likelihood fit to data. The individual background uncertainty does not take into account the possible correlations between the nuisance parameter. The expected signal contributions assuming $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 900 GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}$ = 2000 GeV, normalised the expected limit of the cross-section times branching ratio ($\sigma_{sig}$ × B) values of 0.036 pb and 2.7 fb respectively, are shown as dashed histograms.

Cutflow table for a few selected signal samples after applying the selection requirements of the resolved analysis. At the initial cut stage, all events from the tbH ± → W ± h(→ b b) production process (including those from the fully hadronic decay channel) are considered.

Cutflow table for a few selected signal samples after applying the selection requirements of the merged analysis. At the initial cut stage, all events from the tbH ± → W ± h(→ bb) production process (including those from the fully hadronic decay channel) are considered.

Distributions in $m_{Z'}^{rec}$ for data in the SRs, together with fits of the background functions under the background-only hypothesis for the muon channel. The number of observed events in each bin is divided by the bin width. The signal predictions are shown for different Z' boson masses, normalized to an arbitrary cross section of 1 fb. In the panels below the distributions, the ratios of data to the background function are displayed. The shaded green areas represent the statistical uncertainty from the fit. The $\chi^2$ values per number of degrees of freedom ($\chi^2$/n.d.f.) and the corresponding $p$-values are provided for each fit.

Distributions in $m_{Z'}^{T}$ for data in the SRs, together with fits of the background functions under the background-only hypothesis for the invisible channel. The number of observed events in each bin is divided by the bin width. The signal predictions are shown for different Z' boson masses, normalized to an arbitrary cross section of 1 fb. In the panels below the distributions, the ratios of data to the background function are displayed. The shaded green areas represent the statistical uncertainty from the fit. The $\chi^2$ values per number of degrees of freedom ($\chi^2$/n.d.f.) and the corresponding $p$-values are provided for each fit.

Distributions in $m_{Z'}^{T}$ for data in the SRs, together with fits of the background functions under the background-only hypothesis for the invisible channel. The number of observed events in each bin is divided by the bin width. The signal predictions are shown for different Z' boson masses, normalized to an arbitrary cross section of 1 fb. In the panels below the distributions, the ratios of data to the background function are displayed. The shaded green areas represent the statistical uncertainty from the fit. The $\chi^2$ values per number of degrees of freedom ($\chi^2$/n.d.f.) and the corresponding $p$-values are provided for each fit.

Distributions in $m_{Z'}^{rec}$ for data in the SRs, together with fits of the background functions under the background-only hypothesis for the electron channel. The number of observed events in each bin is divided by the bin width. The signal predictions are shown for different Z' boson masses, normalized to an arbitrary cross section of 1 fb. In the panels below the distributions, the ratios of data to the background function are displayed. The shaded green areas represent the statistical uncertainty from the fit. The $\chi^2$ values per number of degrees of freedom ($\chi^2$/n.d.f.) and the corresponding $p$-values are provided for each fit.

Distributions in $m_{Z'}^{rec}$ for data in the SRs, together with fits of the background functions under the background-only hypothesis for the electron channel. The number of observed events in each bin is divided by the bin width. The signal predictions are shown for different Z' boson masses, normalized to an arbitrary cross section of 1 fb. In the panels below the distributions, the ratios of data to the background function are displayed. The shaded green areas represent the statistical uncertainty from the fit. The $\chi^2$ values per number of degrees of freedom ($\chi^2$/n.d.f.) and the corresponding $p$-values are provided for each fit.

Expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction as a function of the Z' boson mass.Each line corresponds to the three different final states and their combined result.

Expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction as a function of the Z' boson mass.Each line corresponds to the three different final states and their combined result.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction as functions of the Z' boson mass from the combination of all final states. The limits are compared with the predictions of the HVT model and the expected limits (shown by red curves) from a previous analysis.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction as functions of the Z' boson mass from the combination of all final states. The limits are compared with the predictions of the HVT model and the expected limits (shown by red curves) from a previous analysis.

Prediction from the HVT model.

Prediction from the HVT model.

Observed upper limits at 95% CL on gF for different Z' boson masses as functions of the product of $g_{H}$ with the sign of $g_{F}$. The two benchmark scenarios of the HVT model are shown by the black markers.

Observed upper limits at 95% CL on gF for different Z' boson masses as functions of the product of $g_{H}$ with the sign of $g_{F}$. The two benchmark scenarios of the HVT model are shown by the black markers.

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.

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.

Signal selection efficiency times acceptance for charged Higgs boson with masses between $60\,$GeV to $168\,$GeV. The efficiency times acceptance drops at high masses rapidly due to the low momentum of the $b$-quark produced together with the charged Higgs boson. For the $168\,$GeV mass point the efficiency times acceptance is larger than for the $160\,$GeV mass point due to having a higher probability that the top quark, which decays into the charged Higgs boson and a $b$-quark, is off-shell.

Best fit values of $\mu_{t\bar{t}}$ and $f_{\mathrm{HF}}$ parameters at charged Higgs masses between $60\,$GeV and $168\,$GeV.