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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relative systematic uncertainties in the averaged cross-section for various differential distributions in the (a, b) inclusive and (c, d) collinear phase spaces. The upper solid line shows the total uncertainty in the measured cross-section in data, and includes correlations between the systematic components. The &apos;Others&apos; category contains sub-dominant uncertainties arising from missing transverse momentum reconstruction and the jet-to-vertex fraction uncertainties.

Differential cross-section measurement in the inclusive phase space as function of (a) the minimum angular separation between the lepton and any jet with transverse momentum greater than 100&nbsp;GeV (&Delta;R _min(&#8467;,jet¹⁰⁰_i)), and (b) the ratio of W&nbsp;p_T to the closest-jet p_T (p_T^&#8467;&nu; / p_T^{closest jet}). The measured cross-sections in data and their statistical uncertainty are shown by the solid dots and error bars, while the shaded band shows the systematic and statistical uncertainties added in quadrature. Errors bars on the theory prediction include theoretical uncertainties as discussed in the text. The bins around p_T^&#8467;&nu; / p_T^{closest jet} equal to 1 are merged to be insensitive to the singularity that exists in the fixed-order MCFM calculation. Additionally, in (b), the central two bins from the MCFM prediction are merged due to a singularity in fixed-order calculations, which requires p_T resummation of the W + jets system. The two lower panels show the effect of NLO EW_virt as computed from Sherpa 2.2.11.

Differential cross-section measurement in the inclusive phase space as function of (a) the minimum angular separation between the lepton and any jet with transverse momentum greater than 100&nbsp;GeV (&Delta;R _min(&#8467;,jet¹⁰⁰_i)), and (b) the ratio of W&nbsp;p_T to the closest-jet p_T (p_T^&#8467;&nu; / p_T^{closest jet}). The measured cross-sections in data and their statistical uncertainty are shown by the solid dots and error bars, while the shaded band shows the systematic and statistical uncertainties added in quadrature. Errors bars on the theory prediction include theoretical uncertainties as discussed in the text. The bins around p_T^&#8467;&nu; / p_T^{closest jet} equal to 1 are merged to be insensitive to the singularity that exists in the fixed-order MCFM calculation. Additionally, in (b), the central two bins from the MCFM prediction are merged due to a singularity in fixed-order calculations, which requires p_T resummation of the W + jets system. The two lower panels show the effect of NLO EW_virt as computed from Sherpa 2.2.11.

Differential cross-section as a function of the invariant mass of the leading two jets (m_jj) in the inclusive, 2-jet phase space. The measured cross-sections in data and their statistical uncertainty are shown by the solid dots and error bars, while the shaded band shows the systematic and statistical uncertainties added in quadrature. Errors bars on the theory prediction include theoretical uncertainties as discussed in the text. The two lower panels show the effect of NLO EW_virt as computed from Sherpa 2.2.11.

Differential distributions at reconstruction level in the (a, c) electron or (b, d) muon channel for (a, b) inclusive and (c, d) collinear signal regions after the application of the background normalisation factors. The signal process is stacked above all background predictions. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the total signal plus background prediction. The shaded band includes statistical and systematic uncertainties from signal and background processes added in quadrature.

Differential distributions at reconstruction level in the (a, c) electron or (b, d) muon channel for (a, b) inclusive and (c, d) collinear signal regions after the application of the background normalisation factors. The signal process is stacked above all background predictions. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the total signal plus background prediction. The shaded band includes statistical and systematic uncertainties from signal and background processes added in quadrature.

Relative systematic uncertainties in the averaged cross-section for various differential distributions in the (a, b) inclusive and (c, d) collinear phase spaces. The upper solid line shows the total uncertainty in the measured cross-section in data, and includes correlations between the systematic components. The &apos;Others&apos; category contains sub-dominant uncertainties arising from missing transverse momentum reconstruction and the jet-to-vertex fraction uncertainties.

Relative systematic uncertainties in the averaged cross-section for various differential distributions in the (a, b) inclusive and (c, d) collinear phase spaces. The upper solid line shows the total uncertainty in the measured cross-section in data, and includes correlations between the systematic components. The &apos;Others&apos; category contains sub-dominant uncertainties arising from missing transverse momentum reconstruction and the jet-to-vertex fraction uncertainties.

Differential cross-section as a function of (a) the leading p_T ^jet, (b) the inclusive jet multiplicity, (c) S_T, and (d) p^&#8467;&nu;_T in the collinear phase-space. The measured cross-sections in data and their statistical uncertainty are shown by the solid dots and error bars, while the shaded band shows the systematic and statistical uncertainties added in quadrature. Errors bars on the theory prediction include theoretical uncertainties as discussed in the text. The two lower panels show the effect of NLO EW_virt as computed from Sherpa 2.2.11.

Differential cross-section as a function of (a) the leading p_T ^jet, (b) the inclusive jet multiplicity, (c) S_T, and (d) p^&#8467;&nu;_T in the collinear phase-space. The measured cross-sections in data and their statistical uncertainty are shown by the solid dots and error bars, while the shaded band shows the systematic and statistical uncertainties added in quadrature. Errors bars on the theory prediction include theoretical uncertainties as discussed in the text. The two lower panels show the effect of NLO EW_virt as computed from Sherpa 2.2.11.

Differential cross-section as a function of (a) the leading p_T ^jet, (b) the inclusive jet multiplicity, (c) S_T, and (d) p^&#8467;&nu;_T in the collinear phase-space. The measured cross-sections in data and their statistical uncertainty are shown by the solid dots and error bars, while the shaded band shows the systematic and statistical uncertainties added in quadrature. Errors bars on the theory prediction include theoretical uncertainties as discussed in the text. The two lower panels show the effect of NLO EW_virt as computed from Sherpa 2.2.11.

Differential cross-section as a function of (a) the leading p_T ^jet, (b) the inclusive jet multiplicity, (c) S_T, and (d) p^&#8467;&nu;_T in the collinear phase-space. The measured cross-sections in data and their statistical uncertainty are shown by the solid dots and error bars, while the shaded band shows the systematic and statistical uncertainties added in quadrature. Errors bars on the theory prediction include theoretical uncertainties as discussed in the text. The two lower panels show the effect of NLO EW_virt as computed from Sherpa 2.2.11.

Measured fiducial cross-sections in each signal region. The measured cross-sections in data and their total uncertainty are shown by the solid dots and error band. Various theoretical predictions are overlaid and compared with the data in the lower panel. Uncertainties in predictions accurate to NLO precision include QCD scale and PDF uncertainties, while predictions that add NLO EW_virt (electroweak) corrections show uncertainties only due to different electroweak combination schemes. Uncertainties in predictions accurate at fixed-order NNLO precision are derived primarily from MCFM, do not include PDF variations, with an additional extrapolation from the Sherpa QCD with EW_virt prediction to assess the effects of higher-order electroweak corrections. On predictions with EW_virt corrections, the total uncertainty is shown as a shaded region, while the electroweak correction is overlaid with an error bar line.

Differential distributions at reconstructed-level comparing data with the background model in the (a) tt&#772; muon, (b) Z + jets muon, and (c) multijet electron control selections. All backgrounds and signal samples are stacked to produce the figures. The data points are shown as solid dots with their corresponding statistical uncertainty, while the total background model uncertainty is shown by the shaded band. Errors bars on the theory prediction include theoretical uncertainties as discussed in the text.

Differential distributions at reconstructed-level comparing data with the background model in the multijet electron validation region for (a) the transverse momentum of the leading jet and (b) the transverse momentum of the lepton–neutrino system. All backgrounds and signal samples are stacked to produce the figures. The data points are shown as solid dots with their corresponding statistical uncertainty, while the total background model uncertainty is shown by the shaded band. Errors bars on the theory prediction include theoretical uncertainties as discussed in the text.

Differential distributions at reconstructed-level comparing data with the background model in the multijet electron validation region for (a) the transverse momentum of the leading jet and (b) the transverse momentum of the lepton–neutrino system. All backgrounds and signal samples are stacked to produce the figures. The data points are shown as solid dots with their corresponding statistical uncertainty, while the total background model uncertainty is shown by the shaded band. Errors bars on the theory prediction include theoretical uncertainties as discussed in the text.

Differential distributions at reconstructed-level comparing data with the background model in the (a) tt&#772; muon, (b) Z + jets muon, and (c) multijet electron control selections. All backgrounds and signal samples are stacked to produce the figures. The data points are shown as solid dots with their corresponding statistical uncertainty, while the total background model uncertainty is shown by the shaded band. Errors bars on the theory prediction include theoretical uncertainties as discussed in the text.

Differential distributions at reconstructed-level comparing data with the background model in the (a) tt&#772; muon, (b) Z + jets muon, and (c) multijet electron control selections. All backgrounds and signal samples are stacked to produce the figures. The data points are shown as solid dots with their corresponding statistical uncertainty, while the total background model uncertainty is shown by the shaded band. Errors bars on the theory prediction include theoretical uncertainties as discussed in the text.

Response matrices from the Sherpa 2.2.11 event generator for (a) &Delta;R _min(&#8467;,jet¹⁰⁰_i) in the inclusive electron selection, and (b) transverse momentum of the leading jet in the collinear muon selection. The sum of the entries in each reconstructed bin (column) are normalised to unity.

Response matrices from the Sherpa 2.2.11 event generator for (a) &Delta;R _min(&#8467;,jet¹⁰⁰_i) in the inclusive electron selection, and (b) transverse momentum of the leading jet in the collinear muon selection. The sum of the entries in each reconstructed bin (column) are normalised to unity.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM1.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM2.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-HM3.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp1.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp2.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp3.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp-1c.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos when only considering SR-Comp-1c.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 1 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to top or charm quarks and 200 GeV neutralinos for different branching fraction assumptions.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Expected exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Observed exclusion limit $(+1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Observed exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying into charm quarks and neutralinos for the fit with the best expected CL$_\mathrm{S}$.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to first generation leptons and second generation quarks.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section for pair production of up-type scalar LQs coupled to second generation leptons and quarks.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section $(-1\sigma)$ for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the minimal coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section $(+1\sigma)$ for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the minimal coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the minimal coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the minimal coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section $(-1\sigma)$ for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section $(+1\sigma)$ for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Expected upper limit on the cross-section for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Observed upper limit on the cross-section for $U(1)$ vector LQ models in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario with $\beta_{23}=1$, corresponding to a branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}\rightarrow c\nu) = 0.5$.

Distribution of $R_{\mathrm{ISR}}$ in SR-Comp-1c showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(450,430)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}\mathrm{ Sig.}$ in SR-HM1 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(1000,1)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{min}}(c)$ in SR-HM2 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(750,450)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $R_{\mathrm{ISR}}$ in SR-Comp1 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(600,550)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $R_{\mathrm{ISR}}$ in SR-Comp2 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(550,470)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Distribution of $R_{\mathrm{ISR}}$ in SR-Comp3 showing the data and the expected backgrounds, after simultaneously fitting all the control regions. The pre-fit yields for a representative $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(550,375)$ GeV signal is included. Processes with top quarks and multiple vector bosons are included in "Other". The right-most bin does not include the overflow entry but the $x$-axis range is chosen to include all observed data.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp-1c.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp1.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp2.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp3.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3.

Acceptance for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc. Due to the limited statistical power of the signal samples, efficiencies can fluctuate and can drop to zero.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp-1c.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp1.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp2.

Acceptance times efficiency across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp3.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency across the $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ signal grid for SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,min}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM1.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM2.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM3.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $\mathrm{vLQ}^\mathrm{u,YM}_{23}$ signal model in SR-HM-Disc.

Cutflow table for SR-Comp-1c using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (450,430)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-Comp1 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (600,550)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-Comp2 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (550,470)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-Comp3 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (550,375)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM1 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (1000,1)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM2 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (750,450)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM3 using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (750,450)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM-Disc using the $m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = (750,450)$ GeV signal point as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM1 using the $m(\mathrm{LQ}_{21}^\mathrm{u}) = 600$ GeV signal point, with a 50% branching fraction to $c\nu$, as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM2 using the $m(\mathrm{LQ}_{21}^\mathrm{u}) = 600$ GeV signal point, with a 50% branching fraction to $c\nu$, as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM3 using the $m(\mathrm{LQ}_{21}^\mathrm{u}) = 600$ GeV signal point, with a 50% branching fraction to $c\nu$, as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

Cutflow table for SR-HM-Disc using the $m(\mathrm{LQ}_{21}^\mathrm{u}) = 600$ GeV signal point, with a 50% branching fraction to $c\nu$, as the benchmark. All jet-related variables use jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>40$ GeV, however, the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is calculated with jets with $p_\mathrm{T}>20$ GeV. The "Preselection" requirement includes: $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}>250$ GeV; events containing electrons or muons are vetoed; at least two jets must be present of which at least one must be identified as a $c$-tagged jet; events with jets that have been identified as $b$-tagged are discarded; the minimum azimuthal angular ($\phi$) distance between the (up to) four leading jets and the $\vec{p}_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ is required to be greater than 0.4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distribution of the reconstructed $\tau\tau$ invariant mass ($m_{\tau\tau}$) for all events in the VBF_1 signal region for $p_{\text{T}}^{H}>200$ GeV. The observed Higgs boson signal corresponds to $(\sigma\times B)/(\sigma\times B)_{\text{SM}}\,=\,0.99$. Entries with values above the $x$-axis range are shown in the last bin of each distribution. The prediction for each sample is determined from the likelihood fit performed to measure the total $pp\rightarrow H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ cross-section.

Distribution of the reconstructed $\tau\tau$ invariant mass ($m_{\tau\tau}$) for all events in the VBF_0 signal region for $m_{jj}<1$ TeV. The observed Higgs boson signal corresponds to $(\sigma\times B)/(\sigma\times B)_{\text{SM}}\,=\,0.99$. Entries with values above the $x$-axis range are shown in the last bin of each distribution. The prediction for each sample is determined from the likelihood fit performed to measure the total $pp\rightarrow H\rightarrow \tau\tau$ cross-section.

Distribution of the reconstructed $\tau\tau$ invariant mass ($m_{\tau\tau}$) for all events in the VBF_0 signal region for $m_{jj}>1$ TeV. The observed Higgs boson signal corresponds to $(\sigma\times B)/(\sigma\times B)_{\text{SM}}\,=\,0.99$. Entries with values above the $x$-axis range are shown in the last bin of each distribution. The prediction for each sample is determined from the likelihood fit performed to measure the total $pp\rightarrow H \rightarrow \tau\tau$ cross-section.

Distribution of the reconstructed $\tau\tau$ invariant mass ($m_{\tau\tau}$) for all events in the VBF_1 signal region for $m_{jj}<1$ TeV. The observed Higgs boson signal corresponds to $(\sigma\times B)/(\sigma\times B)_{\text{SM}}\,=\,0.99$. Entries with values above the $x$-axis range are shown in the last bin of each distribution. The prediction for each sample is determined from the likelihood fit performed to measure the total $pp\rightarrow \rightarrow \tau\tau$ cross-section.

Distribution of the reconstructed $\tau\tau$ invariant mass ($m_{\tau\tau}$) for all events in the VBF_1 signal region for $m_{jj}>1$ TeV. The observed Higgs boson signal corresponds to $(\sigma\times B)/(\sigma\times B)_{\text{SM}}\,=\,0.99$. Entries with values above the $x$-axis range are shown in the last bin of each distribution. The prediction for each sample is determined from the likelihood fit performed to measure the total $pp\rightarrow H\rightarrow \tau\tau$ cross-section.

Comparison of the observed and expected event yields in the ttH categories. The window category contains events with $m_{\tau\tau} \in [100, 150]$ GeV, while events outside of this mass region are included in the sideband region. The observed Higgs boson signal corresponds to $(\sigma\times B)/(\sigma\times B)_{\text{SM}}\,=\,0.99$. The prediction for each sample is determined from the likelihood fit performed to measure the total $pp\rightarrow H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ cross-section.

The measured values of $\sigma_{H}\times B(H\rightarrow\tau\tau)$ relative to the SM expectations in the total (labelled as 'Combined') and per-production-mode fit. The total $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty in each measurement is indicated by the error bar. The total systematic uncertainty in each measurement is also indicated.

The measured values for $\sigma_{H}\times B(H\rightarrow\tau\tau)$ relative to the SM expectations in the simplified template cross-section measurement. The total $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty in each measurement is indicated by the error bar. The total systematic uncertainty in each measurement is also indicated.

Upper limits at 95% CL on simplified template cross-sections in the individual ttH $p_{\text{T}}^{H}$ bins relative to their SM expectation in the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay channel, derived using the CL$_\text{s}$ method. The observed upper limits, together with the expected limits both in the background-only hypothesis and in the SM hypothesis (dotted red lines) are included. In the case of the expected limits in the background-only hypothesis, one- and two-standard-deviation uncertainty bands are also shown.

Measured fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $p_\text{T}(j_0)$. The measurements are compared with particle-level SM predictions from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8, POWHEG+HERWIG7 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO+Pythia8 generators for the combined VBF, ggF, $VH$, and $t\bar{t}H$ Higgs boson production modes. The shaded box around each data point shows the statistical uncertainty, while the total uncertainty is indicated by the error bar. The contribution from the ggF, $VH$, and $t\bar{t}H$ production modes as predicted by POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is also shown.

Measured fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $p_\text{T}^{H}$. The measurements are compared with particle-level SM predictions from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8, POWHEG+HERWIG7 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO+Pythia8 generators for the combined VBF, ggF, $VH$, and $t\bar{t} H$ Higgs boson production modes. The shaded box around each data point shows the statistical uncertainty, while the total uncertainty is indicated by the error bar. The contribution from the ggF, $VH$, and $t\bar{t} H$ production modes as predicted by POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is also shown.

Measured fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$. The measurements are compared with particle-level SM predictions from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8, POWHEG+HERWIG7 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO+Pythia8 generators for the combined VBF, ggF, $VH$, and $t\bar{t}H$ Higgs boson production modes. The shaded box around each data point shows the statistical uncertainty, while the total uncertainty is indicated by the error bar. The contribution from the ggF, $VH$, and $t\bar{t} H$ production modes as predicted by POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is also shown.

Measured fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$ vs $p_\text{T}^\text{H}$. The measurements are compared with particle-level SM predictions from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8, POWHEG+HERWIG7 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO+Pythia8 generators for the combined VBF, ggF, $VH$, and $t\bar{t}H$ Higgs boson production modes. The shaded box around each data point shows the statistical uncertainty, while the total uncertainty is indicated by the error bar. The contribution from the ggF, $VH$, and $t\bar{t}H$ production modes as predicted by POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is also shown.

The unfolded data compared with the nominal SM predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA8, as well as the predictions for several values of Wilson coefficients in the SMEFT, for $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$.

The unfolded data compared with the nominal SM predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA8, as well as the predictions for several values of Wilson coefficients in the SMEFT, for $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$.

The unfolded data compared with the nominal SM predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA8, as well as the predictions for several values of Wilson coefficients in the SMEFT, for $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$ vs $p_\text{T}^{H}$.

The unfolded data compared with the nominal SM predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA8, as well as the predictions for several values of Wilson coefficients in the SMEFT, for $p_\text{T}^{H}$.

The 95% expected and observed confidence intervals for each of the six considered Wilson coefficients. Each coefficient is treated individually and both the linear and linear + quadratic models are considered when evaluating the sensitivity to the terms that enter at $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda^{-4})$. For the CP-even operators the $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$ distribution is used to extract the confidence interval. The limits are computed at a new-physics scale $\Lambda=1$ TeV.

The 95% expected and observed confidence intervals for each of the six considered Wilson coefficients. Each coefficient is treated individually and both the linear and linear + quadratic models are considered when evaluating the sensitivity to the terms that enter at $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda^{-4})$. For the CP-odd operators the $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$ vs $p_\text{T}^{H}$ distribution is used to extract the confidence interval. The limits are computed at a new-physics scale $\Lambda=1$ TeV.

Two-dimensional observed and expected limits at 68% and 95% confidence level obtained from $c_{HW}$ and $c_{HB}$ using only the SM-dimension-6 interference in the SMEFT basis. The limits are computed at a new-physics scale $\Lambda$ = 1 TeV. In this case, the $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{signed}$ distribution is used. IMPORTANT: HEPData requires the same number of rows for each column. However, each curve of on the plot has a different number of points. For that reason, the curves are padded with data of "0.0, 0.0". The "0.0, 0.0" points should be omitted in analysis.

Two-dimensional observed and expected limits at 68% and 95% confidence level obtained from $c_{H\tilde{W}}$ and $c_{H\tilde{B}}$ using only the SM-dimension-6 interference in the SMEFT basis. The limits are computed at a new-physics scale $\Lambda$ = 1 TeV. In this purely CP-odd case, the $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{signed}$ vs $p_{T}^{H}$ distribution is used. IMPORTANT: HEPData requires the same number of rows for each column. However, each curve of on the plot has a different number of points. For that reason, the curves are padded with data of "0.0, 0.0". The "0.0, 0.0" points should be omitted in analysis.

Two-dimensional observed and expected limits at 68% and 95% confidence level obtained from $c_{HW}$ and $c_{H\tilde{W}}$ using only the SM-dimension-6 interference in the SMEFT basis. The limits are computed at a new-physics scale $\Lambda$ = 1 TeV. In this case, the $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{signed}$ distribution is used. IMPORTANT: HEPData requires the same number of rows for each column. However, each curve of on the plot has a different number of points. For that reason, the curves are padded with data of "0.0, 0.0". The "0.0, 0.0" points should be omitted in analysis.

The expected values of $\sigma_{H}\times B(H\rightarrow\tau\tau)$ relative to the SM expectations in the total (labelled as 'Combined') and per-production-mode fit. The total $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty in each measurement is indicated by the error bar. The total systematic uncertainty in each measurement is also indicated.

The expected values for $\sigma_{H}\times B(H\rightarrow\tau\tau)$ relative to the SM expectations in the simplified template cross-section measurement. The total $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty in each measurement is indicated by the error bar. The total systematic uncertainty in each measurement is also indicated.

The measured values for $\sigma_{H}\times B(H\rightarrow\tau\tau)$ in the simplified template cross-section measurement. The total $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty in the measurement is indicated by the black error bars, with the individual contribution from the statistical uncertainty in blue.

The measured correlations between differential fiducial cross-sections, $\sigma$, and the normalisation factors, $\alpha$, for the $Z(\to\tau\tau) + \text{jets}$ and top backgrounds for $p_\text{T}(j_0)$. The bins denoted as $\sigma_{1,2,3,4}$ correspond to the measurements in the four bins listed elsewhere for each observable.

The measured correlations between differential fiducial cross-sections, $\sigma$, and the normalisation factors, $\alpha$, for the $Z(\to\tau\tau) + \text{jets}$ and top backgrounds for $p_\text{T}^{H}}$. The bins denoted as $\sigma_{1,2,3,4}$ correspond to the measurements in the four bins listed elsewhere for each observable.

The measured correlations between differential fiducial cross-sections, $\sigma$, and the normalisation factors, $\alpha$, for the $Z(\to\tau\tau) + \text{jets}$ and top backgrounds for $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$. The bins denoted as $\sigma_{1,2,3,4}$ correspond to the measurements in the four bins listed elsewhere for each observable.

The measured correlations between differential fiducial cross-sections, $\sigma$, and the normalisation factors, $\alpha$, for the $Z(\to\tau\tau) + \text{jets}$ and top backgrounds for $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$ vs $p_\text{T}^{H}$. The bins denoted as $\sigma_{1,2,3,4}$ correspond to the measurements in the four bins listed elsewhere for each observable.

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 2

Mean multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 3

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 4

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 5

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 6

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 7

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 8

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 9

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 10

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 11

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 12

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 13

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 14

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 15

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 16

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 17

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 18

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 19

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 20

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 21

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 22

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 23

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 24

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 25

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 26

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 27

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 28

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 29

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 30

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 31

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 32

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 33

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 34

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 35

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 36

Mean multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 37

Mean multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 38

Mean multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 39

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 40

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 41

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 42

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 43

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 44

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 45

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 46

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 47

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 48

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 49

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 50

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 51

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 52

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 53

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 54

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 55

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 56

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 57

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 58

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 59

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 60

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 61

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 62

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 63

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 64

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 65

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 66

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 67

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 68

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 69

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 70

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 71

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 72

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 1b$ $\mu$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the pre-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 2bincl$ $e$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 2bincl$ $e$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the pre-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 2bincl$ $\mu$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 2bincl$ $\mu$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the pre-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\) in the 2\(\ell\)1b signal region. The histogram represents the number of events per GeV, with the data points shown as black dots and their associated uncertainties. The stacked colored histograms indicate different processes: \(t\bar{t}\) (red), single top (orange), \(Z+b\) (dark blue), \(Z+c\) (medium blue), \(Z+\)light (light blue), diboson (gray), and fake lepton (purple). The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the predictions.

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\) in the 2\(\ell\)1b signal region. The histogram represents the number of events per GeV, with the data points shown as black dots and their associated uncertainties. The stacked colored histograms indicate different processes: \(t\bar{t}\) (red), single top (orange), \(Z+b\) (dark blue), \(Z+c\) (medium blue), \(Z+\)light (light blue), diboson (gray), and fake lepton (purple). The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the predictions.

The figure shows the pre-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\) in the 2\(\ell\)2bincl signal region. The histogram represents the number of events per GeV, with the data points shown as black dots and their associated uncertainties. The stacked colored histograms indicate different processes: \(t\bar{t}\) (red), single top (orange), \(Z+b\) (dark blue), \(Z+c\) (medium blue), \(Z+\)light (light blue), diboson (gray), and fake lepton (purple). The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the predictions.

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\) in the 2\(\ell\)2bincl signal region. The histogram represents the number of events per GeV, with the data points shown as black dots and their associated uncertainties. The stacked colored histograms indicate different processes: \(t\bar{t}\) (red), single top (orange), \(Z+b\) (dark blue), \(Z+c\) (medium blue), \(Z+\)light (light blue), diboson (gray), and fake lepton (purple). The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the predictions.

The correlation matrix of the fit parameters for the six combined regions, including the signal regions (electron+jets: 1-lepton 1-bjet and 1-lepton 2-bjet inclusive, muon+jets: 1-lepton 1-bjet and 1-lepton 2-bjet inclusive, dilepton: 2-lepton 1-bjet and 2-lepton 2-bjet inclusive) is shown.

The impact of systematic uncertainties on the fitted signal-strength parameter $\hat{\mu}$ for the combined (six signal regions ($e+$jets: $1\ell1b$ and $1\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$, $\mu+$jets: $1\ell1b$ and $1\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$, dilepton: $2\ell1b$ and $2\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$) fit of all channels. Only the 15 most significant systematic uncertainties are shown and listed in decreasing order of their impact on $\mu$ on the $y$-axis. The empty (filled) blue/cyan boxes correspond to the pre-fit (post-fit) impact on $\mu$, referring to the upper $x$-axis. The impact of each systematic uncertainty, $\Delta \mu$, is calculated by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu$ with the result of the fit when fixing the corresponding nuisance parameter $\theta$ to its best-fit value $\hat{\theta}$ shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\hat{\theta} \pm \Delta \theta(\hat{\theta} \pm \Delta \hat{\theta})$. The black points, which refer to the lower $x$-axis, show the pulls of the fitted nuisance parameters, i.e., the deviations of the fitted parameters $\hat{\theta}$ from their nominal values $\theta_0$, normalized to their nominal uncertainties $\Delta \theta$. The black lines show the post-fit uncertainties of the nuisance parameters, relative to their nominal uncertainties, which are indicated by the dashed lines.

Breakdown of relative systematic uncertainties in the measured ${t\bar{t}}$ cross-section. The quoted uncertainties are obtained by repeating the fit with a group of nuisance parameters fixed to their fitted values and subtracting in quadrature the resulting total uncertainty from the uncertainty of the complete fit. However, the total uncertainty is not the quadratic sum of the grouped impacts, as this approach neglects the correlation among the different groups.

The signal strength $\mu_{t\bar{t}}$, defined as the ratio of the observed signal for the combined six signal regions ($e+$jets: $1\ell1b$ and $1\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$, $\mu+$jets: $1\ell1b$ and $1\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$, dilepton: $2\ell1b$ and $2\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$.) to the SM expectation with no nPDF effects included, is measured using a binned profile-likelihood method. The parameter $\mu_{t\bar{t}}$ is determined by the fit to the $H_{T}^{\ell,j}$ data distributions in the six signal regions, where the $H_{T}^{\ell,j}$ variable is defined as the scalar sum of the transverse momenta of the leptons and HI jets. Over all 9% uncertainties is observed

The figure shows the measurement of the top quark pair production cross-section, $\sigma_{t\bar{t}}$, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, based on 165 nb$^{-1}$ of data. The central measured value is shown alongside theoretical predictions using various parton distribution functions (PDFs): MCFM TUJU21, MCFM nNNPDF30, MCFM nCTEQ15HQ, and MCFM EPPS21. The green and yellow bands represent the total and statistical uncertainties of the data, respectively. Additional measurements for comparison include the CMS result at 8.16 TeV for p+Pb collisions and an extrapolated ATLAS+CMS result for pp collisions at 8 TeV. Relevant references are indicated: PRL 119 (2017) 242001 and JHEP 07 (2023) 213.

The ATLAS measurement of \( R_{p\text{Pb}} \) as a function of the nuclear modification factor in proton-lead (\( p\) + Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair \( \sqrt{s_{NN}} = 8.16 \) TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\). The black points represent theoretical predictions from various MCFM parton distribution functions (PDFs): TUJU21, nNNPDF30, nCTEQ15HQ, and EPPS21. The green band indicates the total uncertainty of the data, while the yellow band represents the statistical uncertainty. The dashed line at \( R_{p\text{Pb}} = 1 \) shows the expected value in the absence of nuclear modifications.

Observed exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$ and a $-1 \sigma$ deviation of the NNLO+NNLL theoretical cross-section of a $\tilde{t}_1$ pair-production.

Expected exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

The $1\sigma$ variation of expected 95% CL exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

The $2\sigma$ variation of expected 95%CL exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Observed exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

Observed exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{ GeV}$ and a $+1 \sigma$ deviation of the NNLO+NNLL theoretical cross-section of a $\tilde{t}_1$ pair-production.

Observed exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{ GeV}$ and a $-1 \sigma$ deviation of the NNLO+NNLL theoretical cross-section of a $\tilde{t}_1$ pair-production.

Expected exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

The $1\sigma$ variation of expected 95% CL exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

The $2\sigma$ variation of expected 95%CL exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

Observed upper limits on the top-spartner pair production cross-section in fb at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$

Expected upper limits on the top-spartner pair production cross-section in fb at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$

Observed upper limits on the top-spartner pair production cross-section in fb at the 95% CL in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

Expected upper limits on the top-spartner pair production cross-section in fb at the 95% CL in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

Post-fit distribution of $N_{\mathrm{tops}}^{\mathrm{DNN}} (\mathrm{R=1.0})$ in the SRA signal region presented without the associated SRA applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(j^{b}_{R=1.0}, c)$ in the SRA signal region presented without the associated SRA applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(c_{1})$ in the SRB signal region presented without the associated SRB applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $m_{\mathrm{T}}(j, \mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})_{\mathrm{close}}$ in the SRB signal region presented without the associated SRB applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} \textrm{Significance}$ in the SRC signal region presented without the associated SRC applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $m_{\mathrm{T}}(j, \mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})_{\mathrm{close}}$ in the SRC signal region presented without the associated SRC applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of NN signal score in the SRD signal region presented without the associated SRD applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ in the SRD signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Pull plots showing the SRA, SRB and SRC post-fit data and SM agreement using the background-only fit configuration

Pull plots showing the SRD post-fit data and SM agreement using the background-only fit configuration

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region A. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region B. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region C. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 750. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 1000. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 1250. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 1500. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 1750. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 2000. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal acceptance in the SRA$^{[450,575]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRA$^{[450,575]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRA$^{\geq 575}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRA$^{\geq 575}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRB$^{[100,150]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRB$^{[100,150]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRB$^{[150,400]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRB$^{[150,400]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRB$^{\geq 400}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRB$^{\geq 400}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRC$^{[100,150]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRC$^{[100,150]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRC$^{[150,300]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRC$^{[150,300]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRC$^{[300,500]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRC$^{[300,500]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRC$^{\geq 500}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRC$^{\geq 500}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD750 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD750 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD1000 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD1000 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD1250 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD1250 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD1500 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD1500 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD1750 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD1750 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD2000 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD2000 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.