The performance of jet energy resolution (JER) for jets with |y| < 2.1 evaluated as a function of pT_truth in different centrality bins. Simulated hard scatter events were overlaid onto events from a dedicated sample of minimum-bias Xe+Xe data. The fit parameters are listed in a sperate table (Extras 1)

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for per-pair normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for absolutely normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for rho distributions for leading jets in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

Parameter a,b, and c from JER fits in Figure 1b.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Correlation matrix for the individual sources of systematic uncertainty considered in the analysis, for the combined opposite sign (OS) and same sign (SS) binned-template profile likelihood fit to data. The OS or SS refers to the charge signs of the primary lepton and the soft muon. The gamma parameters are NPs used to describe the effect of the limited statistics of the samples.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded inclusive leptonic asymmetry. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ < 500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [500,750] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [750,1000] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [1000,1500] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ > 1500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ < 30 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [30,120] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > 120 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 200 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [200,300] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [300,400] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 400 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 20 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [20, 70] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 70 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

The expected upper limits on the production cross-section times the product of branching ratios for the benchmark signal scenario involving a scalar particle $X$ with narrow width decaying via $X\rightarrow aa\rightarrow 4\gamma$, $\sigma_X\times B(X\rightarrow aa)\times B(a\rightarrow\gamma\gamma)^2$. The limits for $m_{a}$ = 5 GeV and 10 GeV do not cover as large a range as the other mass points, since the region of interest is limited to $ m_{a} < 0.01 \times m_{X}$. Additionally, the expected limits are not provided for a small number of points, indicated with a hyphen, because of a technical failure with the computation.

The observed upper limits on the production cross-section times the product of branching ratios for the benchmark signal scenario involving a scalar particle $X$ with narrow width decaying via $X\rightarrow aa\rightarrow 6\pi^0$, $\sigma_X\times B(X\rightarrow aa)\times B(a\rightarrow 3\pi^0)^2$. The limits for $m_{a}$ = 5 GeV and 10 GeV do not cover as large a range as the other mass points, since the region of interest is limited to $ m_{a} < 0.01 \times m_{X}$.

The expected upper limits on the production cross-section times the product of branching ratios for the benchmark signal scenario involving a scalar particle $X$ with narrow width decaying via $X\rightarrow aa\rightarrow 6\pi^0$, $\sigma_X\times B(X\rightarrow aa)\times B(a\rightarrow 3\pi^0)^2$. The limits for $m_{a}$ = 5 GeV and 10 GeV do not cover as large a range as the other mass points, since the region of interest is limited to $ m_{a} < 0.01 \times m_{X}$. Additionally, the expected limits are not provided for a small number of points, indicated with a hyphen, because of a technical failure with the computation.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the visible cross section as a function of $m_X$ and the fraction of events in the low-$\Delta E$ category.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.1 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.5 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.7 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 1 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 2 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 5 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 10 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.5 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.7 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 1 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 2 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 5 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 10 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.1 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.5 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.7 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 1 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 2 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 5 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 10 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.5 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.7 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 1 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 2 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 5 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 10 GeV.

Selection efficiency for photons originating from the BSM process $X\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, where the $X$ particle is a high-mass narrow-width scalar particle originating from the gluon--gluon fusion process.

Fraction of photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for photons originating from the BSM process $X\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, where the $X$ particle is a high-mass narrow-width scalar particle originating from the gluon--gluon fusion process.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ medium-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ high-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ multibin SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ GMSB SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Best performing fit setups entering the final combination as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass. 'S' marks the simultaneous fit of the four simplified model single-bin SRs, 'M' denotes the simultaneous fit of the two $1\tau$ SRs and the $2\tau$ multibin SR.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of tanBeta and SUSY breaking mass scale Lambda.

Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Yields of the expected background from the SM in the bins of the multibin SR of the $2\tau$ channel with all bins being simultaneously used to constrain the background prediction. Expectation is given with the scalings computed in the combined fit applied. Uncertainties are statistial plus systematrics. Only the subsamples contributing the respective region are considered.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the compressed $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the medium-mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the medium-mass $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the top VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the $W$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the $Z$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ > 80 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ in the compressed SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ > 1600 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the high-mass SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1100 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

mT(tau_1) + mT(tau_2) in the multibin SR of the 2T channel. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the GMSB SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1900 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

Expected and observed upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^{+}}$ in the hMSSM scenario of the MSSM. Limits are shown for $\tan\beta$ values in the range of 0.5-60, where predictions are available from both scenarios. The bands surrounding the expected limits show the 68% and 95% confidence intervals. The limits are based on the combination of the $\ell+$jets and $\ell\ell$ final states. The production cross-section of $t\bar{t}H$ and $tH$, as well as the branching ratios of the $H$, are fixed to their SM values at each point in the plane. Uncertainties on the predicted $H^{+}$ cross-sections or branching ratios are not considered.

Expected and observed lower limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^{+}}$ in the hMSSM scenario of the MSSM. Limits are shown for $\tan\beta$ values in the range of 0.5-60, where predictions are available from both scenarios. The bands surrounding the expected limits show the 68% and 95% confidence intervals. The limits are based on the combination of the $\ell+$jets and $\ell\ell$ final states. The production cross-section of $t\bar{t}H$ and $tH$, as well as the branching ratios of the $H$, are fixed to their SM values at each point in the plane. Uncertainties on the predicted $H^{+}$ cross-sections or branching ratios are not considered.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of a vector-like $T$ quark in the branching-ratio plane.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of a vector-like $B$ quark in the branching-ratio plane.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $T\bar T$ cross section as a function of $T$ mass under the assumption BR($T\to Wb$)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $B\bar B$ cross section as a function of $B$ mass under the assumption BR($T\to Zt$)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $B\bar B$ cross section as a function of $B$ mass under the assumption BR($B\to Wt$)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $B\bar B$ cross section as a function of $B$ mass under the assumption BR($B\to Zb$)=1.