Corrected $m(HH)$ distribution in the resolved $4b$ signal region (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the $4b$ points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (teal histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The final bin includes overflow. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed, dotted, and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. The bottom panel shows the difference between the $4b$ distribution and the background model, relative to the background model. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

Corrected $m(HH)$ distribution in the resolved $4b$ signal region (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the $4b$ points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (teal histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The final bin includes overflow. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed, dotted, and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. The bottom panel shows the difference between the $4b$ distribution and the background model, relative to the background model. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The steps up to the $b$-tag categorization are shown for the spin-0.

Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The steps up to the $b$-tag categorization are shown for the spin-2.

Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The efficiencies of the three b-tag categories are shown for the spin-0 scenario; this efficiency is obtained after the other selection steps including the SR definition. The signal efficiency in the 4b region has a maximum around 1.5 TeV. Above that value the track-jets start to merge together, and for the highest resonance masses the 2b category becomes the most efficient.

Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The efficiencies of the three b-tag categories are shown for the spin-2 scenario; this efficiency is obtained after the other selection steps including the SR definition. The signal efficiency in the 4b region has a maximum around 1.5 TeV. Above that value the track-jets start to merge together, and for the highest resonance masses the 2b category becomes the most efficient.

Comparison of the background model (stacked histograms) with data (dots) in the $2b$ validation region. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background uncertainty (gray band) is computed by adding all individual components in quadrature and is not allowed to extend below zero.

Comparison of the background model (stacked histograms) with data (dots) in the $3b$ validation region. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background uncertainty (gray band) is computed by adding all individual components in quadrature and is not allowed to extend below zero.

Comparison of the background model (stacked histograms) with data (dots) in the $4b$ validation region. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background uncertainty (gray band) is computed by adding all individual components in quadrature and is not allowed to extend below zero.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $2b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $2b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $3b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $3b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $4b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $4b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

Expected (dashed black lines) and observed (solid black lines) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $HH$ production in the spin-0 signal models. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits (colored bands) are shown. Expected limits using each of the resolved and boosted channels individually (dashed colored lines) are shown. The nominal $H\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ branching ratio is taken as 0.582.

Expected (dashed black lines) and observed (solid black lines) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $HH$ production in the spin-2 signal models. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits (colored bands) are shown. Expected limits using each of the resolved and boosted channels individually (dashed colored lines) are shown. The theoretical prediction for the bulk RS model with $k/\bar{M}_{\text{Pl}} = 1$ (solid red line) is shown; the decrease below 350 GeV is due to a sharp reduction in the $G^{*}_{\text{KK}} \rightarrow HH$ branching ratio. The nominal $H\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ branching ratio is taken as 0.582.

The minimum $\chi^2$ and the parameters $T_{fo}$ and $\beta^{max}_T$ for each of the five centrality selections. The best fit parameters are determined by averaging all parameter pairs within the 1$\sigma$ contour. The errors correspond to the standard deviation of the parameter pairs within the 1$\sigma$ $\chi^2$ contour.

Fit parameters for each particle species using Equations $\frac{dN}{dy}$ = $C \cdot$ ($N_{part}$)$^{\alpha_{part}}$ and $\frac{dN}{dy}$ = $C^{\prime} \cdot$ ($N_{coll}$)$^{\alpha_{coll}}$.

Values of the parameters $n_{pp}$ and $x$ from fitting Equation $R \equiv \frac{dN/dy}{N_{part}}$ = (1-$x$) $\cdot n_{pp} \frac{1}{2}$ + $x \cdot n_{pp} \frac{N_{coll}}{N_{part}}$ = $n_{pp}$ [$\frac{1}{2}$ + $x$($\frac{N_{coll}}{N_{part}}$ - $\frac{1}{2})$]to the observed $dN$/$dy$ per $N_{part}$.

Invariant yields for $\pi^{\pm}$ measured in minimum-bias events at midrapidity and normalized to one rapidity unit.

Invariant yields for $K^{\pm}$ measured in minimum-bias events at midrapidity and normalized to one rapidity unit.

Invariant yields for (anti)$p$ measured in minimum-bias events at midrapidity and normalized to one rapidity unit.

Pion invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

Pion invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

Kaon invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

Kaon invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

Minimum-bias invariant yields for $\pi^{\pm}$ in equal $p_T$ bins.

Minimum-bias invariant yields for $K^{\pm}$ in equal $p_T$ bins.

Minimum-bias invariant yields for (anti)$p$ in equal $p_T$ bins.

Pion invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

Pion invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

Kaon invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

The integrated mean $p_T$ for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons produced in the five different classes of event centrality.

The expansion parameters $T_{fo}$ and $\beta^{max}_T$ as a function of the number of participants.

absolutely normalized dijet yields scaled by 1/<TAA> in 20-40% central PbPb collisions

absolutely normalized dijet yields scaled by 1/<TAA> in 40-60% central PbPb collisions

absolutely normalized dijet yields scaled by 1/<TAA> in 60-80% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijets from pp collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 0-10% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 10-20% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 20-40% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 40-60% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 60-80% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 0-10% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 0-10% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 10-20% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 10-20% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 20-40% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 20-40% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 40-60% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 40-60% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 60-80% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 60-80% central PbPb collisions

ratio of subleading jet RAA^pair to leading jet RAA^pair in PbPb collisions

Total efficiencies for the selection of signal events after categorization and application of the tighter photon $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ selection used to optimize the signal significance spin-1 $q\bar{q'}\to X^{\pm} \to W^{\pm}\gamma$. In addition to the total efficiency, contributions to the signal selection from each of the separate event categories are shown. The efficiencies calculated from MC samples with $W/Z$ hadronic decays are shown as the points on each curve. The line presents interpolated results.

Total efficiencies for the selection of signal events after categorization and application of the tighter photon $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ selection used to optimize the signal significance spin-2 $q\bar{q}\to X^0 \to Z\gamma$. In addition to the total efficiency, contributions to the signal selection from each of the separate event categories are shown. The efficiencies calculated from MC samples with $W/Z$ hadronic decays are shown as the points on each curve. The line presents interpolated results.

Total efficiencies for the selection of signal events after categorization and application of the tighter photon $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ selection used to optimize the signal significance spin-2 $gg\to X^0 \to Z\gamma$. In addition to the total efficiency, contributions to the signal selection from each of the separate event categories are shown. The efficiencies calculated from MC samples with $W/Z$ hadronic decays are shown as the points on each curve. The line presents interpolated results.

The $m_{J\gamma}$ distributions of data events selected for the spin-1 $q\bar{q'}\to X^{\pm} \to W^{\pm}\gamma$ search in the D2 category. The background-only fit function shape is shown as the solid curve overlaid with a shaded band corresponding to statistical uncertainties in background parameters. Various signal shapes with cross-sections corresponding to expected limits obtained in this analysis are shown as dashed lines.

The $m_{J\gamma}$ distributions of data events selected for the spin-1 $q\bar{q'}\to X^{\pm} \to W^{\pm}\gamma$ search in the WMASS category. The background-only fit function shape is shown as the solid curve overlaid with a shaded band corresponding to statistical uncertainties in background parameters. Various signal shapes with cross-sections corresponding to expected limits obtained in this analysis are shown as dashed lines.

The $m_{J\gamma}$ distributions of data events selected for the spin-0 $gg \to X^{0} \to Z\gamma$ search in the BTAG category. The background-only fit function shape is shown as the solid curve overlaid with a shaded band corresponding to statistical uncertainties in background parameters. Various signal shapes with cross-sections corresponding to expected limits obtained in this analysis are shown as dashed lines.

The $m_{J\gamma}$ distributions of data events selected for the spin-0 $gg \to X^{0} \to Z\gamma$ search in the D2 category. The background-only fit function shape is shown as the solid curve overlaid with a shaded band corresponding to statistical uncertainties in background parameters. Various signal shapes with cross-sections corresponding to expected limits obtained in this analysis are shown as dashed lines.

The $m_{J\gamma}$ distributions of data events selected for the spin-0 $gg \to X^{0} \to Z\gamma$ search in the ZMASS category. The background-only fit function shape is shown as the solid curve overlaid with a shaded band corresponding to statistical uncertainties in background parameters. Various signal shapes with cross-sections corresponding to expected limits obtained in this analysis are shown as dashed lines.

The $m_{J\gamma}$ distributions of data events selected for the spin-2 $gg \to X^{0} \to Z\gamma$ search in the BTAG category. The background-only fit function shape is shown as the solid curve overlaid with a shaded band corresponding to statistical uncertainties in background parameters. Various signal shapes with cross-sections corresponding to expected limits obtained in this analysis are shown as dashed lines.

The $m_{J\gamma}$ distributions of data events selected for the spin-2 $gg \to X^{0} \to Z\gamma$ search in the D2 category. The background-only fit function shape is shown as the solid curve overlaid with a shaded band corresponding to statistical uncertainties in background parameters. Various signal shapes with cross-sections corresponding to expected limits obtained in this analysis are shown as dashed lines.

The $m_{J\gamma}$ distributions of data events selected for the spin-2 $gg \to X^{0} \to Z\gamma$ search in the ZMASS category. The background-only fit function shape is shown as the solid curve overlaid with a shaded band corresponding to statistical uncertainties in background parameters. Various signal shapes with cross-sections corresponding to expected limits obtained in this analysis are shown as dashed lines.

The $m_{J\gamma}$ distributions of data events selected for the spin-2 $q\bar{q} \to X^{0} \to Z\gamma$ search in the BTAG category. The background-only fit function shape is shown as the solid curve overlaid with a shaded band corresponding to statistical uncertainties in background parameters. Various signal shapes with cross-sections corresponding to expected limits obtained in this analysis are shown as dashed lines.

The $m_{J\gamma}$ distributions of data events selected for the spin-2 $q\bar{q} \to X^{0} \to Z\gamma$ search in the D2 category. The background-only fit function shape is shown as the solid curve overlaid with a shaded band corresponding to statistical uncertainties in background parameters. Various signal shapes with cross-sections corresponding to expected limits obtained in this analysis are shown as dashed lines.

The $m_{J\gamma}$ distributions of data events selected for the spin-2 $q\bar{q} \to X^{0} \to Z\gamma$ search in the ZMASS category. The background-only fit function shape is shown as the solid curve overlaid with a shaded band corresponding to statistical uncertainties in background parameters. Various signal shapes with cross-sections corresponding to expected limits obtained in this analysis are shown as dashed lines.

The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp\to X)\times B(X\to W/Z\gamma)$ as a function of $m_{X}$ for spin-0 $gg \to X^{0} \to Z\gamma$. The observed limits are shown as a solid black line and the expected ones are shown as a dashed line with the 1$\sigma$ (2$\sigma$) uncertainty band presented as the green (yellow) band.

The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp\to X)\times B(X\to W/Z\gamma)$ as a function of $m_{X}$ for spin-2 $gg \to X^{0} \to Z\gamma$. The observed limits are shown as a solid black line and the expected ones are shown as a dashed line with the 1$\sigma$ (2$\sigma$) uncertainty band presented as the green (yellow) band.

The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp\to X)\times B(X\to W/Z\gamma)$ as a function of $m_{X}$ for spin-2 $q\bar{q} \to X^{0} \to Z\gamma$. The observed limits are shown as a solid black line and the expected ones are shown as a dashed line with the 1$\sigma$ (2$\sigma$) uncertainty band presented as the green (yellow) band.

The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp\to X)\times B(X\to W/Z\gamma)$ as a function of $m_{X}$ for spin-1 $q\bar{q'}\to X^{\pm} \to W^{\pm}\gamma$. The observed limits are shown as a solid black line and the expected ones are shown as a dashed line with the 1$\sigma$ (2$\sigma$) uncertainty band presented as the green (yellow) band.

The jet mass distribution of large-$R$ jets originating from the hadronic decay of $W$ and $Z$ bosons produced from the decay of BSM bosons with mass $m_X = 2000$ GeV. The decays simulated are for the production models $q\bar{q'}\to X^{\pm} \to W^{\pm}\gamma$ with a spin-1 resonance $X^{\pm}$ and $gg\to X^0 \to Z\gamma$ with a spin-0 resonance $X^{0}$.

The photon $E_{T}$ selection criteria as a function of resonance mass for D2 categories. Selections for four different signal channels are shown together.

The photon $E_{T}$ selection criteria as a function of resonance mass for ZMASS or WMASS categories. Selections for four different signal channels are shown together.

Parametrization of the $A_{X}$ factor, defined as the fraction of diphoton resonances satisfying the fiducial acceptance at the particle level, as function of $m_{X}$ obtained from the narrow width simulated signal samples produced in gluon fusion.

The correction factor, $C_{X}$, defined as the ratio between the number of reconstructed signal events passing the analysis cuts and the number of signal events at the particle level generated within the fiducial volume, and acceptance correction factor, $A_{X}$, defined as the fraction of diphoton resonances satisfying the fiducial acceptance at the particle level. Both are computed for NWA spin-0 models as a function of $m_{X}$.

Effect of event selections on a scalar MC signal sample generated for $m_{X}$ = 15 GeV and on the data. For the MC sample, the efficiencies are shown after applying event weights and a truth level filter that requires two photons with $p^{\gamma\gamma}_{T}>40$ GeV; for the data, the absolute yields are shown. The initial yields for data include a trigger preselection that is the OR of a list of single photon and diphoton triggers. The "2 $loose$ photons" step includes the kinematic acceptance cuts.

Parameterization of the Double Sided Crystal Ball function parameters describing the scalar mass resolution model as a function of $m_{X}$ [GeV].

The reconstruction efficiency for caloDPJs produced by the decay of &gamma;_d into e⁺e^- or qq&#772;. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as a function of their transverse momentum in events where the &gamma;_d L_xy is between 2&nbsp;m and 4&nbsp;m.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_2&mu;^ggF, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_c+&mu;^ggF, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_2c^ggF, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and WH selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_c^WH, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and WH selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_c+&mu;^WH, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and WH selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_2c^WH, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_2&mu;^ggF, assuming a HAHM signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_c+&mu;^ggF, assuming a HAHM signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_2c^ggF, assuming a HAHM signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d is larger than unity.

The CalRatio 2015--2016 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in e⁺e^- or qq&#772;. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse decay length L_xy.

The CalRatio 2015--2016 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in e⁺e^- or qq&#772;. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse momentum, in events where the &gamma;_d L_xy is between 2&nbsp;m and 4&nbsp;m.

The CalRatio 2017--2018 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in e⁺e^- or qq&#772;. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse decay length L_xy.

The CalRatio 2017--2018 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in e⁺e^- or qq&#772;. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse momentum, in events where the &gamma;_d L_xy is between 2&nbsp;m and 4&nbsp;m.

The narrow-scan 2015--2016 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in &mu;⁺&mu;^-. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse decay length L_xy.

The narrow-scan 2015--2016 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in &mu;⁺&mu;^-. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse momentum, in events where the &gamma;_d L_xy is below 6&nbsp;m.

The narrow-scan 2017--2018 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in &mu;⁺&mu;^-. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse decay length L_xy.

The narrow-scan 2017--2018 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in &mu;⁺&mu;^-. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse momentum, in events where the &gamma;_d L_xy is below 6&nbsp;m.

Efficiency of the cosmic-ray tagger as function of the &gamma;_d transverse decay length. The efficiency is calculated accepting the &mu;DPJs for which the cosmic-ray tagger score is &gt; 0.2 for each associated MS-only track.

Efficiency of the cosmic-ray tagger as function of the &gamma;_d transverse momentum. The efficiency is calculated accepting the &mu;DPJs for which the cosmic-ray tagger score is &gt; 0.2 for each associated MS-only track.

Efficiency of the QCD tagger as function of the &gamma;_d transverse decay length. The efficiency is calculated accepting the caloDPJs for which the QCD tagger score is &gt; 0.5.

Efficiency of the QCD tagger as function of the &gamma;_d transverse momentum. The efficiency is calculated accepting the caloDPJs for which the QCD tagger score is &gt; 0.5.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_2&mu;^ggF.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_c+&mu;^ggF.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_2c^ggF.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_c^WH.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_2c^WH.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_c+&mu;^WH.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_c+&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2c;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the HAHM H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the ggF channel.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_c+&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the HAHM H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the ggF channel.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2c;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the HAHM H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the ggF channel.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_c+&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2c;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_c+&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2c;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the branching ratio (B), obtained from the SR_2&mu;^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125 GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the branching ratio (B), obtained from the SR_c+&mu;^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125 GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the branching ratio (B), obtained from the SR_2c^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125 GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section, obtained from the SR_2&mu;^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section, obtained from the SR_c+&mu;^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section, obtained from the SR_2c^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown for the 2&mu; search channel, assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown for the c+&mu; search channel, assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown for the 2c search channel, assuming an FRVZ signal model.

The rejection factor (inverse of the efficiency) for jets that have the other origins (background jets) are shown. The background jet rejection factor is calculated using pre-selected large-$R$ jets in the sample of simulated $Z\rightarrow\nu\nu$ + jets events, dominated by initial state radiation (ISR) jets. The efficiency correction factors are applied on the background rejection for the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The boson-tagging efficiency for jets arising from $Z/h$ bosons decaying into $b\bar{b}$ (signal jets). The signal jet efficiency of $Z_{bb}$/$h_{bb}$-tagging is evaluated using a sample of pre-selected large-$R$ jets ($p_{\textrm{T}}>200~\textrm{GeV}, |\eta|<2.0, m_{J} > 40~\textrm{GeV}$) in the simulated $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model signal events with $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}},~\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}) \ge 400~\textrm{GeV}$. The jets are matched with generator-level $Z/h$-bosons by $\Delta R<1.0$ which decay into $b\bar{b}$. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The rejection factor (inverse of the efficiency) for jets that have the other origins (background jets) are shown. The background jet rejection factor is calculated using pre-selected large-$R$ jets in the sample of simulated $Z\rightarrow\nu\nu$ + jets events, dominated by initial state radiation (ISR) jets. As for the $Z_{bb}$/$h_{bb}$-tagging, the rejection is shown as the function of number of $b$- or $c$-quarks contained in the large-$R$ jet within $\Delta R<1.0$. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The total post-fit uncertainty in each of the SRs and VRs.

Summary of the observed data and predicted SM background in all SRs. The background prediction in SR-4Q (SR-2B2Q) is obtained by a background-only fit to CR0L-4Q (CR0L-2B2Q). The total systematic uncertainty on the background prediction is shown by the hatched area. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\textrm{GeV}$. The bottom panel shows the statistical significance of the discrepancy between the observed number of events and the SM expectation.

Number of observed data events and the SM backgrounds in the SRs and the CR0L bins. The SM backgrounds are predicted by the background-only fits. Note that the relative uncertainty on the expected yield in the CRs between the reducible backgrounds are identical, given that a common normalization factor is assigned for all of them in the fit. Yields for negligible backgrounds are indicated by "0.0000001±0.0000001" in the table.

Number of observed data events and the post-fit SM background prediction in the VR1L(1Y) bins and the corresponding CR1L(1Y) bins. "-" indicates negligibly small contribution. Note that the relative uncertainty on the expected yield in the CRs between the reducible backgrounds are identical, given that a common normalization factor is assigned for all of them in the fit. Yields for negligible backgrounds are indicated by "0.0000001±0.0000001" in the table.

$m_{\textrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{1})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $D_2(J_{1})$ in SR-4Q-VV. For $D_2$, the cut value applied for $V_{qq}$-tagging ($D_{2,\text{cut}}$) is subtracted as the off-set so that $D_2-D_{2,\text{cut}}(J)<0$ represents $J$ passing the $D_2$ selection. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{2})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $D_2(J_{2})$ in SR-4Q-VV. For $D_2$, the cut value applied for $V_{qq}$-tagging ($D_{2,\text{cut}}$) is subtracted as the off-set so that $D_2-D_{2,\text{cut}}(J)<0$ represents $J$ passing the $D_2$ selection. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

$m_{\textrm{T2}}$ distributions in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{bb})$ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m_{\textrm{eff}} $ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

$m_{\textrm{T2}}$ distributions in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{bb})$ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m_{\textrm{eff}} $ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=75$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=75$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=50$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=50$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=25$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ models. The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ models. The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1C1-WW) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-Wh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-Zh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-hh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-4Q-VV, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-2B2Q-VZ, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-2B2Q-Vh, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1C1-WW) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-Wh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-Zh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-hh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

Signal region detector-level distribution for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lead}\, \ell}$.

Signal region detector-level distribution for the observable $m_{e\mu}$.

Signal region detector-level distribution for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{e\mu}$.

Measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$

Relative systematic uncertainties for the fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$

Measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $|\Delta \phi(e \mu)|$

Relative systematic uncertainties for the fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $|\Delta \phi(e \mu)|$

Measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $ \cos\theta^{\ast}$

Relative systematic uncertainties for the fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $ \cos\theta^{\ast}$

Measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lead}\, \ell}$

Relative systematic uncertainties for the fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lead}\, \ell}$

Measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $m_{e\mu}$

Relative systematic uncertainties for the fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $m_{e\mu}$

Measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{e\mu}$

Relative systematic uncertainties for the fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{e\mu}$

The statistical correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$

The total correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$

The statistical correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $|\Delta \phi(e \mu)|$

The total correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $|\Delta \phi(e \mu)|$

The statistical correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $ \cos\theta^{\ast}$

The total correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $ \cos\theta^{\ast}$

The statistical correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lead}\, \ell}$

The total correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lead}\, \ell}$

The statistical correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $m_{e\mu}$

The total correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $m_{e\mu}$

The statistical correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{e\mu}$

The total correlation coefficients (in percentage) between bins for the measured fiducial differential cross-section of $WW \rightarrow e^{\pm}\nu\mu^{\mp}\nu$ production for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{e\mu}$

Distribution of ${E}_{T}^{miss}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the electron channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 3-jets VR, without applying the cut on ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of ${E}_{T}^{miss}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the electron channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 4-jets VR, without applying the cut on ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the signal region, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the $W$+jets VR, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 3-jets VR, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 4-jets VR, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Expected distributions of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR, for the s-channel single-top signal, and for the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets backgrounds, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. Each distribution is normalised to unity. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the $W$+jets VR. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit presented in Section 5 in the paper. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty and the normalisation uncertainties for the various processes in each bin, summed in quadrature. The ratio of the observed number to the predicted number of events in each bin is shown in the lower panel of the figure, with different vertical axis ranges. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit described in Section 8 in the paper, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the $t\bar{t}$ 3-jets VR. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit presented in Section 5 in the paper. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty and the normalisation uncertainties for the various processes in each bin, summed in quadrature. The ratio of the observed number to the predicted number of events in each bin is shown in the lower panel of the figure, with different vertical axis ranges. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit described in Section 8 in the paper, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the $t\bar{t}$ 4-jets VR. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit presented in Section 5 in the paper. The uncertainty bands indicate the simulation's statistical uncertainty and the normalisation uncertainties for the various processes in each bin, summed in quadrature. The ratio of the observed number to the predicted number of events in each bin is shown in the lower panel of the figure, with different vertical axis ranges. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit described in Section 8 in the paper, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR before the fit to data, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction, with different vertical axis ranges. The uncertainty band indicates the total uncertainties and their correlations in each bin. The uncertainties in the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, as well as in the s-channel signal cross-section, are not defined pre-fit and therefore not included. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR after the fit to data, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction, with different vertical axis ranges. The uncertainty band indicates the total uncertainties and their correlations in each bin. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR after the fit to data, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$, after subtraction of all backgrounds. The fitted distribution for the simulation of the signal is shown together with the post-fit uncertainty in the backgrounds. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Pre-fit and post-fit event yields in the SR, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. The central value of the event yield for each process is calculated by summing the values of the discriminant bin contents, using the nominal expected yield for the pre-fit value, and the best-fit estimate for the post-fit value. The error includes statistical and systematic uncertainties summed in quadrature. All sources of systematic uncertainties are included, taking into account correlations and anti-correlations in the post-fit case. The uncertainties in the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, as well as in the s-channel signal cross-section, are not defined pre-fit and therefore only included in the post-fit uncertainties.

Observed impact of the different sources of uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section, grouped by categories. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. The 'Systematic uncertainties' category combines all sources of systematic uncertainties. The statistical uncertainty is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed all nuisance parameters, including the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors. 'Total' gives the total uncertainty on the measurement.

Observed impact of the different sources of $t\bar{t}$ modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, and 'ME/PS matching' to the matching of the ME to the parton shower.

Observed impact of the different sources of s-channel modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, as described in Section 7 in the paper.

Observed impact of the different sources of t-channel modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, as described in Section 7 in the paper.

Observed impact of the different sources of $tW$ modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section, grouped by categories. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, and '$t\bar{t}$ overlap' to the algorithm removing the overlap between $tW$ and $t\bar{t}$ production at NLO, as described in Section 7 in the paper.

Observed impact of the different sources of PDF uncertainties on the measured s-channel signal cross-section, grouped by categories. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the leading-jet $p_{T}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the leading-jet $\eta$. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the subleading-jet $p_{T}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the subleading-jet $\eta$. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the lepton $p_{T}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the lepton $\eta$. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the $m_{T}^{W}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Nuisance parameters ranked according to their post-fit impacts on the best-fit value of the ratio $\mu$ of the measured cross-section to the predicted cross-section. In the figure, only the 20 nuisance parameters with the largest post-fit impacts are shown. The empty (solid) blue rectangles illustrate the pre-fit (post-fit) impact on $\mu$, corresponding to the upper axis. The pre-fit (post-fit) impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta\mu$, is calculated as the difference in the fitted value of $\mu$ between the nominal fit and the fit when fixing the corresponding nuisance parameter to $\hat{\theta}\pm\Delta\theta$ ($\hat{\theta}\pm\Delta\hat{\theta}$), where $\hat{\theta}$ is the best-fit value of the nuisance parameter and $\Delta\theta$ ($\Delta\hat{\theta}$) is its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainty. Several systematic uncertainties are split into different nuisance parameters, which are indicated by NP. JES (JER) indicates jet energy scale (resolution), and $\gamma$ indicates a nuisance parameter associated to the MC statistics in one of the 18 bins numbered from 0 to 17. The black points show the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters, with the error bars representing the post-fit uncertainties. Each nuisance parameter is shown wrt. its nominal value, $\theta_0$, and in units of its pre-fit uncertainty, except the free-floating normalisation factors of the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets backgrounds, and the parameters associated to the MC statistics in each bin, for which the post-fit values and uncertainties are shown.

Correlation matrix of the nuisance parameters and of the ratio $\mu$ of the measured cross-section to the predicted cross-section. The correlations are given after the fit to data. In the figure, only the parameters which have a correlation of at least 0.2 with any other parameter are shown.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$, for the collision data used for the measurement, and for 1000 pseudo-data replicas, generated using a bootstrapping technique, in order to assess the statistical correlations between this measurement and others, for the purpose of combinations. The replicas are obtained by reweighting each observed data event by a random integer generated according to Poisson statistics, using the <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5361038">BootstrapGenerator</a> software package , which implements a technique described in <a href="https://cds.cern.ch/record/2759945/">ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011</a>. The ATLAS event number and run number of each event are used as seed to uniquely but reproducibly initialise the random number generator for each event. Each pseudo-data replica is assigned an index, ranging from 0 to 999, corresponding to the random number index used consistently for each observed data event.

Measured values of the signal cross-section and of the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, obtained by statistical-only fits to the collision data used for the measurement, and to 1000 pseudo-data replicas, generated using a bootstrapping technique, in order to assess the statistical correlations between this measurement and others, for the purpose of combinations. The central values and their statistical uncertainties are obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed all nuisance parameters, except the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, which are let free-floating (unlike for the statistical uncertainty on the cross-section quoted in the paper). The replicas are obtained by reweighting each observed data event by a random integer generated according to Poisson statistics, using the <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5361038">BootstrapGenerator</a> software package , which implements a technique described in <a href="https://cds.cern.ch/record/2759945/">ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011</a>. The ATLAS event number and run number of each event are used as seed to uniquely but reproducibly initialise the random number generator for each event. Each pseudo-data replica is assigned an index, ranging from 0 to 999, corresponding to the random number index used consistently for each observed data event.

Fit results based on $k(\delta_{\eta})$=$1/{{2\alpha\xi}/{\delta_{\eta}}}$ ($\xi << \delta_{\eta}$).