The 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Z' \rightarrow \chi \chi$) times branching ratio B in fb with all statistical and systematic uncertainties, for the $R_{\text{inv}}=$0.6 signal points.

Data yield in the PFN signal region.

Yield of data in the ANTELOPE signal region in the binning used for BumpHunter fitting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observed and expected 95 % CL exclusion limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^{\pm}}$, shown in the context of the mh125 scenario, for $m_{H^{\pm}}>150$ GeV and $(1 \leq \tan\beta \leq 60)$. The surrounding shaded bands correspond to the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence intervals around the expected limit.

Observed and expected 95 % CL exclusions on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^{\pm}}$ derived from exclusion limits on $\mathrm{\cal{B}}(t\to bH^+)\times \mathrm{\cal{B}}(H^+ \to \tau \nu)$, for Type I 2HDM low mass scenario. The surrounding shaded bands correspond to the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence intervals around the expected limit.

Observed and expected 95 % CL exclusions on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^{\pm}}$ derived from exclusion limits on $\mathrm{\cal{B}}(t\to bH^+)\times \mathrm{\cal{B}}(H^+ \to \tau \nu)$, for Lepton Specific 2HDM low mass scenario. The surrounding shaded bands correspond to the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence intervals around the expected limit.

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

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

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

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

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

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the visible $\tau\nu$ production cross section, $\sigma_{\rm vis} = \sigma(pp \to \tau\nu +X) \cdot \mathcal{A} \cdot \varepsilon$, for $m_{\rm T}$ thresholds ranging from 200 to 2950 GeV. See HepData abstract for details on how to use this data for reinterpretation.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times branching ratio as a function of the W′ mass in several NUGIM models defined by the value of the parameter cot$\theta$.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times branching ratio as a function of the W′ mass in several NUGIM models defined by the value of the parameter cot$\theta$.

Acceptance for $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ as a function of the $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass, shown after successively applying selection at generator-level. The acceptance times efficiency is calculated with respect to all $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM} \to \tau\nu$ events with a generated $\tau\nu$ mass above 25 GeV. The "selected tau" criteria include the requirement of a $\tau_{\rm had-vis}$ with $p_{\rm T}$ > 30 GeV and $|\eta|$ < 2.4.

Acceptance times efficiency for $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ as a function of the $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass, shown after successively applying selection at reconstruction-level. The acceptance times efficiency is calculated with respect to all $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM} \to \tau\nu$ events with a generated $\tau\nu$ mass above 25 GeV. "Preselection" includes all criteria prior to those shown.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. 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, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. 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, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. 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, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. 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, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. 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, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. 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, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. 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, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. 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, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. 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, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. 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, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. 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, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. 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, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 1.5, 1.0, and 0.75 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 1.5, 1.0, and 0.75 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 0.5, 0.35, and 0.25 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 0.5, 0.35, and 0.25 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{21}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{21}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{21}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{3}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{3}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{3}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet ECF2 at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet ECF2 at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet ECF2 at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $C_{3}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $C_{3}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $C_{3}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $p_\mathrm{T}^{d,*}$ (jet $p_T$ dispersion) at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $p_\mathrm{T}^{d,*}$ (jet $p_T$ dispersion) at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $p_\mathrm{T}^{d,*}$ (jet $p_T$ dispersion) at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet LHA at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet LHA at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet LHA at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 122.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 157.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 157.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 187.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 187.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 222.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 122.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 157.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 122.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 157.5 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 157.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 187.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 122.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 157.5 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 157.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 187.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 157.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 187.5 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 187.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 222.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 122.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 157.5 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 187.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 222.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 157.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 187.5 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 187.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 222.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 187.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 222.5 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 122.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 157.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 157.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 187.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 187.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 222.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 122.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 157.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 157.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 187.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 187.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 222.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 122.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 157.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 122.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 157.5 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 157.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 187.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 122.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 157.5 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 157.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 187.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 157.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 187.5 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 187.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 222.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 122.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 157.5 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 187.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 222.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 157.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 187.5 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 187.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 222.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ in 187.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 222.5 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 122.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 157.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 157.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 187.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $m^{top}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 187.5 GeV < $m^{top}$ < 222.5 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $\tau_{32}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel, accounting for the statistical uncertainty.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 500.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 500.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 550.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 650.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 650.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 750.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of RC large-R jet $D_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$ at particle level in the $\ell$+jets channel in 750.0 GeV < $p_{T}$ < 2000.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64822.9 $\pm$ 254.6, NPowHeg truth =634276.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64273.2 $\pm$ 253.5, NPowHeg truth =338671.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 65362.4 $\pm$ 255.7 , NPowHeg truth =634214.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63486.8 $\pm$ 252.0, NPowHeg truth =333348.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64432.6 $\pm$ 253.8, NPowHeg truth =624059.

Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57095.9 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301666, N Sherpa truth =76327.

Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57130 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301666, N Sherpa truth =763273.

Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58310.9 $\pm$ 245, NPowHeg truth =564672, N Sherpa truth =814016.

Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58320.9 $\pm$ 245, NPowHeg truth =564672, N Sherpa truth =814016.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57705.4 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301655, N Sherpa truth =763259.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58869.2 $\pm$ 256, NPowHeg truth =564660, NS herpa truth =813995.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57358.6 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =298662, N Sherpa truth =756609.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58226.4 $\pm$ 254, NPowHeg truth =558949, N Sherpa truth =806988.

Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63717.4 $\pm$ 252.4, NPowHeg truth =338714.

Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63855.8 $\pm$ 252.7 , NPowHeg truth =338708.

Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64809.8 $\pm$ 254.6, NPowHeg truth =634285.

Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64822.9 $\pm$ 254.6, NPowHeg truth =634276.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64273.2 $\pm$ 253.5, NPowHeg truth =338671.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 65362.4 $\pm$ 255.7 , NPowHeg truth =634214.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63486.8 $\pm$ 252.0, NPowHeg truth =333348.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64432.6 $\pm$ 253.8, NPowHeg truth =624059.

Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57095.9 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301666, N Sherpa truth =76327.

Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57130 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301666, N Sherpa truth =763273.

Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58310.9 $\pm$ 245, NPowHeg truth =564672, N Sherpa truth =814016.

Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58320.9 $\pm$ 245, NPowHeg truth =564672, N Sherpa truth =814016.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57705.4 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301655, N Sherpa truth =763259.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58869.2 $\pm$ 256, NPowHeg truth =564660, NS herpa truth =813995.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57358.6 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =298662, N Sherpa truth =756609.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58226.4 $\pm$ 254, NPowHeg truth =558949, N Sherpa truth =806988.

Truth $P_{T}^{Z}$ distribution after reweghting to data.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63717.4 $\pm$ 252.4, NPowHeg truth =338714.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63855.8 $\pm$ 252.7 , NPowHeg truth =338708.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64809.8 $\pm$ 254.6, NPowHeg truth =634285.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64822.9 $\pm$ 254.6, NPowHeg truth =634276.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64273.2 $\pm$ 253.5, NPowHeg truth =338671.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 65362.4 $\pm$ 255.7 , NPowHeg truth =634214.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63486.8 $\pm$ 252.0, NPowHeg truth =333348.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64432.6 $\pm$ 253.8, NPowHeg truth =624059.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57095.9 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301666, N Sherpa truth =76327.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57130 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301666, N Sherpa truth =763273.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58310.9 $\pm$ 245, NPowHeg truth =564672, N Sherpa truth =814016.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58320.9 $\pm$ 245, NPowHeg truth =564672, N Sherpa truth =814016.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57705.4 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301655, N Sherpa truth =763259.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58869.2 $\pm$ 256, NPowHeg truth =564660, NS herpa truth =813995.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57358.6 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =298662, N Sherpa truth =756609.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58226.4 $\pm$ 254, NPowHeg truth =558949, N Sherpa truth =806988.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63717.4 $\pm$ 252.4, NPowHeg truth =338714.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63855.8 $\pm$ 252.7 , NPowHeg truth =338708.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64809.8 $\pm$ 254.6, NPowHeg truth =634285.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64822.9 $\pm$ 254.6, NPowHeg truth =634276.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64273.2 $\pm$ 253.5, NPowHeg truth =338671.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 65362.4 $\pm$ 255.7 , NPowHeg truth =634214.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63486.8 $\pm$ 252.0, NPowHeg truth =333348.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64432.6 $\pm$ 253.8, NPowHeg truth =624059.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57095.9 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301666, N Sherpa truth =76327.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57130 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301666, N Sherpa truth =763273.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58310.9 $\pm$ 245, NPowHeg truth =564672, N Sherpa truth =814016.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58320.9 $\pm$ 245, NPowHeg truth =564672, N Sherpa truth =814016.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57705.4 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301655, N Sherpa truth =763259.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58869.2 $\pm$ 256, NPowHeg truth =564660, NS herpa truth =813995.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57358.6 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =298662, N Sherpa truth =756609.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58226.4 $\pm$ 254, NPowHeg truth =558949, N Sherpa truth =806988.

Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with dressed leptons.

Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with bare leptons.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with dressed leptons for leading photon.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with bare leptons for leading photon.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with dressed leptons for second photon.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with bare leptons for second photon.

Unfolded dRgg distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with dressed leptons.

Unfolded dRgg distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with bare leptons.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma 1}$ distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with dressed leptons for leading photon.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma 1}$ distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with bare leptons for leading photon.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma 2}$ distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with dressed leptons for second photon.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma 2}$ distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with bare leptons for second photon.

Summary of results for cross-section of non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair for 13 TeV data in fb/GeV. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $J/\psi$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Correction factors for an assumed angular dependence $\propto 1+\lambda_{\theta} \cos^2\theta $ in the helicity frame, for several values of the parameter $\lambda_{\theta}$. The correction factors were found to be the same (within 1% - 2%) for $J/\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ mesons, for prompt and non-prompt production mechanisms, and for the three rapidity intervals considered in this paper.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 1.2 < |y| < 1.6.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 1.6 < |y| < 2.0.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 2.0 < |y| < 2.4.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 2.4 < |y| < 2.8.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 2.8 < |y| < 3.6.

Measured cross sections in full-lepton phase space as a function of |y|.

Normalised measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for |y| < 1.6.