Correlation matrix for the correlated systematic uncertainties of the forward rapidity $\eta$ meson cross section.

Correlation matrix for the correlated systematic uncertainties of the central rapidity $\eta$ meson cross section.

Correlations (stat.+syst.) between the $d\Gamma_i/d w$ bins for the individual $B \rightarrow D \ell \nu$ modes (40x40). Element indices 0-39 are organized as: - Indices 0-9: $B^+ \to D^0 e^+ \nu_e$ in $w$ bins 0-9 - Indices 10-19: $B^+ \to D^0 \mu^+ \nu_\mu$ in $w$ bins 0-9 - Indices 20-29: $B^0 \to D^- e^+ \nu_e$ in $w$ bins 0-9 - Indices 30-39: $B^0 \to D^- \mu^+ \nu_\mu$ in $w$ bins 0-9 where $w$ bins 0-9 correspond to: 0: [1.00, 1.06], 1: [1.06, 1.12], 2: [1.12, 1.18], 3: [1.18, 1.24], 4: [1.24, 1.30], 5: [1.30, 1.36], 6: [1.36, 1.42], 7: [1.42, 1.48], 8: [1.48, 1.54], 9: [1.54, 1.59]

$M_{\tau}$ distribution in signal region, (OS$\mu$, Belle II)

$M_{\tau}$ distribution in signal region, (SS$e$, Belle)

$M_{\tau}$ distribution in signal region, (SS$e$, Belle II)

$M_{\tau}$ distribution in signal region, (SS$\mu$, Belle)

$M_{\tau}$ distribution in signal region, (SS$\mu$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}\ell)$ and $m^2(K^{*0}t_{\tau})$, where $t_{\tau}$ is the track from the $\tau$, (OS$e$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}\ell)$ and $m^2(K^{*0}t_{\tau})$, where $t_{\tau}$ is the track from the $\tau$, (OS$e$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}\ell)$ and $m^2(K^{*0}t_{\tau})$, where $t_{\tau}$ is the track from the $\tau$, (OS$\mu$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}\ell)$ and $m^2(K^{*0}t_{\tau})$, where $t_{\tau}$ is the track from the $\tau$, (OS$\mu$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}\ell)$ and $m^2(K^{*0}t_{\tau})$, where $t_{\tau}$ is the track from the $\tau$, (SS$e$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}\ell)$ and $m^2(K^{*0}t_{\tau})$, where $t_{\tau}$ is the track from the $\tau$, (SS$e$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}\ell)$ and $m^2(K^{*0}t_{\tau})$, where $t_{\tau}$ is the track from the $\tau$, (SS$\mu$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}\ell)$ and $m^2(K^{*0}t_{\tau})$, where $t_{\tau}$ is the track from the $\tau$, (SS$\mu$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function the helicity angle of the kaon $\cos\theta_{K}$, and the helicity angle of the lepton $\cos\theta_{\ell}$ in bin e the four-momentum-transfer $q^{2}$, (OS$e$, Belle)

Efficiency as function the helicity angle of the kaon $\cos\theta_{K}$, and the helicity angle of the lepton $\cos\theta_{\ell}$ in bin e the four-momentum-transfer $q^{2}$, (OS$e$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function the helicity angle of the kaon $\cos\theta_{K}$, and the helicity angle of the lepton $\cos\theta_{\ell}$ in bin e the four-momentum-transfer $q^{2}$, (OS$\mu$, Belle)

Efficiency as function the helicity angle of the kaon $\cos\theta_{K}$, and the helicity angle of the lepton $\cos\theta_{\ell}$ in bin e the four-momentum-transfer $q^{2}$, (OS$\mu$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function the helicity angle of the kaon $\cos\theta_{K}$, and the helicity angle of the lepton $\cos\theta_{\ell}$ in bin e the four-momentum-transfer $q^{2}$, (SS$e$, Belle)

Efficiency as function the helicity angle of the kaon $\cos\theta_{K}$, and the helicity angle of the lepton $\cos\theta_{\ell}$ in bin e the four-momentum-transfer $q^{2}$, (SS$e$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function the helicity angle of the kaon $\cos\theta_{K}$, and the helicity angle of the lepton $\cos\theta_{\ell}$ in bin e the four-momentum-transfer $q^{2}$, (SS$\mu$, Belle)

Efficiency as function the helicity angle of the kaon $\cos\theta_{K}$, and the helicity angle of the lepton $\cos\theta_{\ell}$ in bin e the four-momentum-transfer $q^{2}$, (SS$\mu$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the helicity angle of the kaon $\cos\theta_{K}$, (OS$e$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the helicity angle of the kaon $\cos\theta_{K}$, (OS$e$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the helicity angle of the kaon $\cos\theta_{K}$, (OS$\mu$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the helicity angle of the kaon $\cos\theta_{K}$, (OS$\mu$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the helicity angle of the kaon $\cos\theta_{K}$, (SS$e$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the helicity angle of the kaon $\cos\theta_{K}$, (SS$e$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the helicity angle of the kaon $\cos\theta_{K}$, (SS$\mu$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the helicity angle of the kaon $\cos\theta_{K}$, (SS$\mu$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the helicity angle of the lepton $\cos\theta_{\ell}$, (OS$e$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the helicity angle of the lepton $\cos\theta_{\ell}$, (OS$e$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the helicity angle of the lepton $\cos\theta_{\ell}$, (OS$\mu$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the helicity angle of the lepton $\cos\theta_{\ell}$, (OS$\mu$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the helicity angle of the lepton $\cos\theta_{\ell}$, (SS$e$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the helicity angle of the lepton $\cos\theta_{\ell}$, (SS$e$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the helicity angle of the lepton $\cos\theta_{\ell}$, (SS$\mu$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the helicity angle of the lepton $\cos\theta_{\ell}$, (SS$\mu$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the acoplanarity angle $\phi$, (OS$e$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the acoplanarity angle $\phi$, (OS$e$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the acoplanarity angle $\phi$, (OS$\mu$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the acoplanarity angle $\phi$, (OS$\mu$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the acoplanarity angle $\phi$, (SS$e$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the acoplanarity angle $\phi$, (SS$e$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the acoplanarity angle $\phi$, (SS$\mu$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the acoplanarity angle $\phi$, (SS$\mu$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the four-momentum-transfer $q^{2}$, (OS$e$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the four-momentum-transfer $q^{2}$, (OS$e$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the four-momentum-transfer $q^{2}$, (OS$\mu$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the four-momentum-transfer $q^{2}$, (OS$\mu$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the four-momentum-transfer $q^{2}$, (SS$e$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the four-momentum-transfer $q^{2}$, (SS$e$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the four-momentum-transfer $q^{2}$, (SS$\mu$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the four-momentum-transfer $q^{2}$, (SS$\mu$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}\ell)$, (OS$e$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}\ell)$, (OS$e$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}\ell)$, (OS$\mu$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}\ell)$, (OS$\mu$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}\ell)$, (SS$e$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}\ell)$, (SS$e$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}\ell)$, (SS$\mu$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}\ell)$, (SS$\mu$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}t_{\tau})$, where $t_{\tau}$ is the track from the $\tau$, (OS$e$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}t_{\tau})$, where $t_{\tau}$ is the track from the $\tau$, (OS$e$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}t_{\tau})$, where $t_{\tau}$ is the track from the $\tau$, (OS$\mu$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}t_{\tau})$, where $t_{\tau}$ is the track from the $\tau$, (OS$\mu$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}t_{\tau})$, where $t_{\tau}$ is the track from the $\tau$, (SS$e$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}t_{\tau})$, where $t_{\tau}$ is the track from the $\tau$, (SS$e$, Belle II)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}t_{\tau})$, where $t_{\tau}$ is the track from the $\tau$, (SS$\mu$, Belle)

Efficiency as function of the invariant mass squared $m^2(K^{*0}t_{\tau})$, where $t_{\tau}$ is the track from the $\tau$, (SS$\mu$, Belle II)

Signal-selection efficiency as a function of the di-tau invariant mass squared $q^2$ for simulated events in the SR. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainty.

The transverse-mass dependence of the correlation-strength parameter $\lambda$ in 30-40% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the correlation-strength parameter $\lambda$ in 40-50% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the correlation-strength parameter $\lambda$ in 50-60% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 0-10% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 10-20% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 20-30% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 30-40% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 40-50% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$ in 50-60% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 0-10% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 10-20% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 20-30% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 30-40% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 40-50% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the Lévy-index of stability parameter $\alpha$ in 50-60% centrality bin obtained from Lévy fits with Eq. (9).

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 0-10% centrality intervals. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 10-20% centrality intervals. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 20-30% centrality intervals. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 30-40% centrality intervals. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 40-50% centrality interval. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the normalized correlation-strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{\rm max}$ for 50-60% centrality interval. For each centrality bin the data are fitted with the Gaussian function of Eq. (15). This parameterization can describe the data and is discussed in detail in Section VI B. The fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 7.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 0-10% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 10-20% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 20-30% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 30-40% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 40-50% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter $R$, shown in 50-60% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the A and B linear fit parameters with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 8.

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 0-10% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 10-20% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 20-30% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 30-40% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 40-50% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The transverse-mass dependence of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter, shown in 50-60% centrality bin. The values and uncertainties of the linear fit parameters $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ with the statistic and systematic uncertainties are shown in Fig. 9

The $H$ parameter that characterize the magnitude of the $\lambda/\lambda_{max}(m_T)$ and is defined in Eq. (15)., shown as functions of $N_{part}$.

The $\sigma$ parameter that characterize the width of the $\lambda/\lambda_{max}(m_T)$ and is defined in Eq. (15)., shown as functions of $N_{part}$.

The parameter $A$ of the affine linear fit to the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter that are defined in Eq.(12) as function of $N_{part}$

The parameter $B$ of the affine linear fit to the inverse square of the Lévy-scale parameter that are defined in Eq.(12) as function of $N_{part}$

The parameter $\widehat{A}$ of the affine linear fit to the inverse of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter that are defined in Eq.(14) as function of $N_{part}$.

The parameter $\widehat{B}$ of the affine linear fit to the inverse of the $\widehat{R}$ parameter that are defined in Eq.(14) as function of $N_{part}$.

The centrality dependence of $\alpha_0$, the $m_T$-averaged value of $\alpha$ as a function of $N_{part}$.

The Lévy scale parameter $R$ as a function of $N^{1/3}_{part}$ at $m_T=0.326$ GeV.

The Lévy scale parameter $R$ as a function of $N^{1/3}_{part}$ at $m_T=0.438$ GeV.

The Lévy scale parameter $R$ as a function of $N^{1/3}_{part}$ at $m_T=0.553$ GeV.

The Lévy scale parameter $R$ as a function of $N^{1/3}_{part}$ at $m_T=0.670$ GeV.

The Lévy scale parameter $R$ as a function of $N^{1/3}_{part}$ at $m_T=0.787$ GeV.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 0-10%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 10-20%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 20-30%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 30-40%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 40-50%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with no mass drop assumed in 50-60%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 0-10%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 10-20%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 20-30%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 30-40%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 40-50%.

Monte Carlo calcuations with the best mass drop assumed in 50-60%.

The best values of $B^{-1}_{\eta\prime}$ spectrum of the $\eta\prime$ condensate in the six centrality classes.

The centrality dependence of the best values of the in-medium mass of the $m^{*}_{\eta\prime}$.

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 0-10% (see Fig. 11).

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 10-20% (see Fig. 11).

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 20-30% (see Fig. 11).

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 30-40% (see Fig. 11).

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 40-50% (see Fig. 11).

The CL maps of the comparison of the MC to data in 50-60% (see Fig. 11).

The systematic covariance matrix for the $e^+e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^0$ cross section measurement at the Belle II. The 212 x 212 matrix of the energy ranges from 0.62 to 3.50 GeV. This covariance matrix includes all systematic uncertainty given in Table I. The total covariance matrix for the measured cross section can be obtained by adding statistical and systematic covariance matrices.

This table provides the ``inverse'' of the total (stat.+ sys.) covariance matrix. This matrix can be used for a chi-square fit of the mass spectrum. We provide this inverse matrix since special care is needed to take the inverse of the given covariance matrix.

Pre-fit background composition of the SR$3\ell$ Prod. The table shows the event yields as opposed to just the percentages of the relevant background processes.

Post-fit plot of $H_\text{T}(\text{jets})$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from a signal-blinded background-only fit.

Post-fit plot of $m(t_\text{SM}, b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from a signal-blinded background-only fit.

Post-fit plot of $m(\ell_\text{OS},\ell_\text{SS,1})$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from a signal-blinded background-only fit.

Post-fit plot of $m(\ell_\text{OS},\ell_\text{SS,1})$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from a signal-blinded background-only fit.

Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ HF$e$ from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ HF$\mu$ from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ $t\bar{t}V$ from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_2)$ in the CR$3\ell$ HF$e$ from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_2)$ in the CR$3\ell$ HF$\mu$ from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the CR$3\ell$ $t\bar{t}W$ from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the CR$3\ell$ $t\bar{t}Z$ from the full fit to data.

Observed and expected upper exclusion limits on the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hu)$ for different analyses and their statistical combination.

Observed and expected upper exclusion limits on the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hc)$ for different analyses and their statistical combination.

Post-fit normalisation factors of free-floating background processes and the signal normalisation.

Post-fit predicted and observed yields in all $2\ell$SS signal and control regions. Pre-fit signal contributions for a signal cross section equivalent to $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hq)=0.1\,\%$ are given as well.

Post-fit predicted and observed yields in all $3\ell$ signal and control regions. Pre-fit signal contributions for a signal cross section equivalent to $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hq)=0.1\,\%$ are given as well.

Expected upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hq)$ for the nominal fit and alternative fit configurations. One contains the full phase space but only considers statistical uncertainties. Two other configurations consider the full set of systematic uncertainties, but only encompass one final state.

Expected and observed upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hq)$ and $|C_{u\phi}^{qt,tq}|$ for the full fit containing all systematic uncertainties.

Pre-fit plot of $H_\text{T}(\text{jets})$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from a signal-blinded background-only fit.

Pre-fit plot of $m(t_\text{SM}, b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from a signal-blinded background-only fit.

Pre-fit plot of $m(\ell_\text{OS},\ell_\text{SS,1})$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from a signal-blinded background-only fit.

Pre-fit plot of $m(\ell_\text{OS},\ell_\text{SS,1})$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from a signal-blinded background-only fit.

Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ HF$e$ from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ HF$\mu$ from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ $t\bar{t}V$ from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_2)$ in the CR$3\ell$ HF$e$ from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_2)$ in the CR$3\ell$ HF$\mu$ from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the CR$3\ell$ $t\bar{t}W$ from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the CR$3\ell$ $t\bar{t}Z$ from the full fit to data.

Ranking of fit nuisance parameters according to their impact on the post-fit $tHu$ signal normalisation when fixed to $\pm1\sigma$

Ranking of fit nuisance parameters according to their impact on the post-fit $tHc$ signal normalisation when fixed to $\pm1\sigma$

Expected upper exclusion limits on the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hu)$ for each individual final state and the full analysis.

Expected upper exclusion limits on the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hc)$ for each individual final state and the full analysis.

Figure 8(left) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 1 b$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 8(right) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the leading $b$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 1 b$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 9 of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the $\Delta R$ between the $Z$ boson and the leading $b$-jet in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 1 b$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 10(left) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the $\Delta \phi$ between the leading and sub-leading $b$-jets in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 2 b$-jets. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 10(right) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the invariant mass of the leading and sub-leading $b$-jets in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 2 b$-jets. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 11(left) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 1 c$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 11(right) of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell ight) + 1 c$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Figure 12 of the article. Differential fiducial cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $x_F$ in events with $Z \left( \rightarrow \ell\ell \right) + 1 c$-jet. The thin inner band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the outer band to statistical and systematic uncertainties of the data, added in quadrature.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 18 & 24) for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 4.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 19 & 25) for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 9.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 20 & 26) for the differential cross-section of the leading $b$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 5.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 21 & 27) for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 10.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 22 & 28) for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $x_F$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 11.

Correction factors from parton level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling (see Tables 23 & 29) for the differential cross-section of $\Delta R$ between the $Z$ boson and the leading $b$-jet in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties for what concerns the passage from hadron level flavour dressing to hadron level cone labelling, plus statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations used for parton to hadron corrections. See Table 6.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 12.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 13.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of the leading $b$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 14.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 15.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $x_F$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 16.

Correction factors from hadron level done with flavour dressing algorithms as seen in Ref. [2] of the paper of the paper to hadron level with R 0.3 cone labelling for the differential cross-section of $\Delta R$ between the $Z$ boson and the leading $b$-jet in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include Sherpa 2.2.11 and MGaMC+Py8 FxFx uncertainties. See Table 17.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 12.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of the Z boson $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 13.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of the leading $b$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 14.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $p_T$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 15.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of the leading $c$-jet $x_F$ in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ c-jets. Systematic errors include statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 16.

Correction factors from parton level to hadron level for the differential cross-section of $\Delta R$ between the $Z$ boson and the leading $b$-jet in events with $Z (\rightarrow ll) \ge 1 $ b-jets. Systematic errors include statistical uncertainty of Pythia8 simulations. See Table 17.