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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distribution of the diphoton invariant mass in validation region VR2. The solid histograms are stacked to show the SM expectations after the 2×2D background estimation technique is applied. Background and signal predictions are normalised to the luminosity. The background category "h (other)" includes events originating from VBF, Vh, ggF, thq, thW and bb̄h, all subdominant in this signature. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated by the shaded area. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction for the respective bin. The first and last bins include the underflows and overflows respectively.

Distribution of the missing transverse momentum in validation region VR2. The solid histograms are stacked to show the SM expectations after the 2×2D background estimation technique is applied. Background and signal predictions are normalised to the luminosity. The background category "h (other)" includes events originating from VBF, Vh, ggF, thq, thW and bb̄h, all subdominant in this signature. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated by the shaded area. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction for the respective bin. The first and last bins include the underflows and overflows respectively.

Distribution of the diphoton invariant mass with all selections of the signal regions applied, except on m_{γγ} itself, for signal region SR1h. The background estimation techniques described in the text are applied. The different backgrounds are stacked to add up to the total SM prediction in each bin. The predicted yields for signal benchmark models of varying χ̃⁰₁ mass are also overlaid (not stacked) assuming B(χ̃⁰₁ → hG̃ ) to equal 100%. Background and signal predictions are normalised to the luminosity. The background category "h (other)" includes events originating from VBF, Vh, ggF, thq, thW and bb̄h, all subdominant in this signature. The sizes of the statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated by the shaded areas. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the SM prediction. Arrows indicate the borders of the signal region (|m_{γγ}-125 GeV|<5 GeV). The first and last bins include the underflows and overflows respectively.

Distribution of the diphoton invariant mass with all selections of the signal regions applied, except on m_{γγ} itself, for signal region SR1Z. The background estimation techniques described in the text are applied. The different backgrounds are stacked to add up to the total SM prediction in each bin. The predicted yields for signal benchmark models of varying χ̃⁰₁ mass are also overlaid (not stacked) assuming B(χ̃⁰₁ → hG̃ ) to equal 50%. Background and signal predictions are normalised to the luminosity. The background category "h (other)" includes events originating from VBF, Vh, ggF, thq, thW and bb̄h, all subdominant in this signature. The sizes of the statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated by the shaded areas. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the SM prediction. Arrows indicate the borders of the signal region (|m_{γγ}-125 GeV|<5 GeV). The first and last bins include the underflows and overflows respectively.

Distribution of the diphoton invariant mass with all selections of the signal regions applied, except on m_{γγ} itself, for signal region SR2. The background estimation techniques described in the text are applied. The different backgrounds are stacked to add up to the total SM prediction in each bin. The predicted yields for signal benchmark models of varying χ̃⁰₁ mass are also overlaid (not stacked) assuming B(χ̃⁰₁ → hG̃ ) to equal 100%. Background and signal predictions are normalised to the luminosity. The background category "h (other)" includes events originating from VBF, Vh, ggF, thq, thW and bb̄h, all subdominant in this signature. The sizes of the statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated by the shaded areas. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the SM prediction. Arrows indicate the borders of the signal region (|m_{γγ}-125 GeV|<5 GeV). The first and last bins include the underflows and overflows respectively.

Observed and expected limits on the pure higgsino cross-section at 95% CL assuming B(χ̃⁰₁ → hG̃ )=100% for different χ̃⁰₁ masses, obtained by a statistical combination of the three signal regions SR1h, SR1Z and SR2. The inner and outer bands indicate the 1σ and 2σ variation on the expected limit respectively.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the pure-higgsino branching fraction to B(χ̃⁰₁ → hG̃ ) as a function of the higgsino mass m(χ̃⁰₁) assuming it decays via either χ̃⁰₁→ hG̃ or χ̃⁰₁→ ZG̃. Limits are obtained by performing a statistical combination of the three signal regions SR1h, SR1Z and SR2. The ± 1σ variation on the expected limit is shown. The dotted lines indicate the observed limit obtained by a variation of theoretical prediction for the neutralino production cross-section by ±1 σ. Values of B(χ̃⁰₁ → hG̃ ) larger than the observed 95% CL limit are excluded, as indicated by the hatched area.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the pure-higgsino branching fraction to B(χ̃⁰₁ → hG̃ ) as a function of the higgsino mass m(χ̃⁰₁) assuming it decays via either χ̃⁰₁→ hG̃ or χ̃⁰₁→ ZG̃. Limits are obtained by performing a statistical combination of the three signal regions SR1h, SR1Z and SR2. The ± 1σ variation on the expected limit is shown. The dotted lines indicate the observed limit obtained by a variation of theoretical prediction for the neutralino production cross-section by ±1 σ. Values of B(χ̃⁰₁ → hG̃ ) larger than the observed 95% CL limit are excluded, as indicated by the hatched area.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the pure-higgsino branching fraction to B(χ̃⁰₁ → hG̃ ) as a function of the higgsino mass m(χ̃⁰₁) assuming it decays via either χ̃⁰₁→ hG̃ or χ̃⁰₁→ ZG̃. Limits are obtained by performing a statistical combination of the three signal regions SR1h, SR1Z and SR2. The ± 1σ variation on the expected limit is shown. The dotted lines indicate the observed limit obtained by a variation of theoretical prediction for the neutralino production cross-section by ±1 σ. Values of B(χ̃⁰₁ → hG̃ ) larger than the observed 95% CL limit are excluded, as indicated by the hatched area.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the pure-higgsino branching fraction to B(χ̃⁰₁ → hG̃ ) as a function of the higgsino mass m(χ̃⁰₁) assuming it decays via either χ̃⁰₁→ hG̃ or χ̃⁰₁→ ZG̃. Limits are obtained by performing a statistical combination of the three signal regions SR1h, SR1Z and SR2. The ± 1σ variation on the expected limit is shown. The dotted lines indicate the observed limit obtained by a variation of theoretical prediction for the neutralino production cross-section by ±1 σ. Values of B(χ̃⁰₁ → hG̃ ) larger than the observed 95% CL limit are excluded, as indicated by the hatched area.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the pure-higgsino branching fraction to B(χ̃⁰₁ → hG̃ ) as a function of the higgsino mass m(χ̃⁰₁) assuming it decays via either χ̃⁰₁→ hG̃ or χ̃⁰₁→ ZG̃. Limits are obtained by performing a statistical combination of the three signal regions SR1h, SR1Z and SR2. The ± 1σ variation on the expected limit is shown. The dotted lines indicate the observed limit obtained by a variation of theoretical prediction for the neutralino production cross-section by ±1 σ. Values of B(χ̃⁰₁ → hG̃ ) larger than the observed 95% CL limit are excluded, as indicated by the hatched area.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the pure-higgsino branching fraction to B(χ̃⁰₁ → hG̃ ) as a function of the higgsino mass m(χ̃⁰₁) assuming it decays via either χ̃⁰₁→ hG̃ or χ̃⁰₁→ ZG̃. Limits are obtained by performing a statistical combination of the three signal regions SR1h, SR1Z and SR2. The ± 1σ variation on the expected limit is shown. The dotted lines indicate the observed limit obtained by a variation of theoretical prediction for the neutralino production cross-section by ±1 σ. Values of B(χ̃⁰₁ → hG̃ ) larger than the observed 95% CL limit are excluded, as indicated by the hatched area.

Numbers of signal and background events in the signal regions. The respective background estimation techniques are applied. The background category "h (other)" includes events originating from VBF, Vh, ggF, thq, thW and bb&#772;h, all subdominant in this signature. The different backgrounds are stacked to add up to the total Standard Model prediction in each bin. The predicted yields for signal benchmark models of varying &chi;&#771;⁰₁ mass are also plotted (not stacked), assuming B(&chi;&#771;⁰₁ &rarr; hG&#771; )=100% and a &chi;&#771;⁰₁ mass of 130 or 200 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated by the shaded areas in the top plot. The bottom panel shows the statistical significance&nbsp;<a href="https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-025/">[Ref]</a> of the difference between the SM prediction and the observed data in each region.

Observed 95% CL limits in pb on the pure higgsino cross-section, shown in the m(&chi;&#771;⁰₁)-B(&chi;&#771;⁰₁ &rarr; hG&#771; ) plane. Limits are obtained by a statistical combination of the three signal regions SR1h, SR1Z and SR2, assuming the neutralino to decay via either &chi;&#771;⁰₁&rarr; hG&#771; or &chi;&#771;⁰₁&rarr; ZG&#771;.

Acceptances for all signal model points considered in the analysis, shown in the m(&chi;&#771;⁰₁)-B(&chi;&#771;⁰₁ &rarr; hG&#771; ) plane. Acceptances are provided separately for signal region SR1h, assuming the neutralino to decay via either &chi;&#771;⁰₁&rarr; hG&#771; or &chi;&#771;⁰₁&rarr; ZG&#771;.

Acceptances for all signal model points considered in the analysis, shown in the m(&chi;&#771;⁰₁)-B(&chi;&#771;⁰₁ &rarr; hG&#771; ) plane. Acceptances are provided separately for signal region SR1Z, assuming the neutralino to decay via either &chi;&#771;⁰₁&rarr; hG&#771; or &chi;&#771;⁰₁&rarr; ZG&#771;.

Acceptances for all signal model points considered in the analysis, shown in the m(&chi;&#771;⁰₁)-B(&chi;&#771;⁰₁ &rarr; hG&#771; ) plane. Acceptances are provided separately for signal region SR2, assuming the neutralino to decay via either &chi;&#771;⁰₁&rarr; hG&#771; or &chi;&#771;⁰₁&rarr; ZG&#771;.

Efficiencies for all signal model points considered in the analysis, shown in the m(&chi;&#771;⁰₁)-B(&chi;&#771;⁰₁ &rarr; hG&#771; ) plane. Efficiencies are provided separately for signal region SR1h, assuming the neutralino to decay via either &chi;&#771;⁰₁&rarr; hG&#771; or &chi;&#771;⁰₁&rarr; ZG&#771;.

Efficiencies for all signal model points considered in the analysis, shown in the m(&chi;&#771;⁰₁)-B(&chi;&#771;⁰₁ &rarr; hG&#771; ) plane. Efficiencies are provided separately for signal region SR1Z, assuming the neutralino to decay via either &chi;&#771;⁰₁&rarr; hG&#771; or &chi;&#771;⁰₁&rarr; ZG&#771;.

Efficiencies for all signal model points considered in the analysis, shown in the m(&chi;&#771;⁰₁)-B(&chi;&#771;⁰₁ &rarr; hG&#771; ) plane. Efficiencies are provided separately for signal region SR2, assuming the neutralino to decay via either &chi;&#771;⁰₁&rarr; hG&#771; or &chi;&#771;⁰₁&rarr; ZG&#771;.

Observed and expected numbers of events in the three signal regions. The background category "h (other)" includes events originating from VBF, Vh, ggF, thq, thW and bb&#772;h, all subdominant in this signature. The table also includes model-independent 95% CL upper limits on the visible number of BSM events (S⁹⁵_obs), the number of BSM events given the expected number of background events (S⁹⁵_exp) and the visible BSM cross-section (&lang;&epsilon; &sigma;&rang;_obs⁹⁵), all calculated from pseudo-experiments. The discovery p-value (p₀) is also shown and its value is capped at 0.5 if the observed number of events is below the expected number of events.

Cutflows of two benchmark signal points assuming B(&chi;&#771;⁰₁ &rarr; hG&#771; )=100% for all three discovery signal regions. The initial selection includes the leptons veto. Only statistical uncertainties are included. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb^-1.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Fiducial differential cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $N_{\mathrm{gap}\,\mathrm{jets}}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 14.

Fiducial differential cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $\xi_{\mathrm{j}3}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 15.

Fiducial differential cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\ell\ell}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 16.

Fiducial differential cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{T}}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 17.

Fiducial differential cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 18.

Fiducial differential cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $N_{\mathrm{gap}\,\mathrm{jets}}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 19.

Fiducial differential cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $\xi_{\mathrm{j}3}$. The correlation of uncertainties of the measured cross section across bins is presented in Table 20.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\ell\ell}$. See Table 1.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{T}}$. See Table 2.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$. See Table 3.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $N_{\mathrm{gap}\,\mathrm{jets}}$. See Table 4.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the electroweak $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $\xi_{\mathrm{j}3}$. See Table 5.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\ell\ell}$. See Table 6.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{T}}$. See Table 7.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$. See Table 8.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $N_{\mathrm{gap}\,\mathrm{jets}}$. See Table 9.

Observed correlations between the bins of the LH-unfolded cross section of the inclusive $W^\pm W^\pm jj$ production as a function of $\xi_{\mathrm{j}3}$. See Table 10.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label M0 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label M1 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label M7 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient. The limits on M7 were obtained without taking into account the SM-EFT interference for the EW W$^\pm$Zjj final state.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label S02 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label S1 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label T0 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label T1 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Evolution of the one-dimensional expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the parameters corresponding to the quartic operators with label T2 as a function of the cut-off scale. The unitarity bounds as a function of the cut-off scale are defined for one non-zero Wilson coefficient.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for $\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm\pm}_5) \times \mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}^{\pm\pm}_5 \rightarrow W^{\pm}W^{\pm})$ as a function of the doubly-charged Higgs mass.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for $\sin\theta_{\mathrm{H}}$ as a function of the doubly-charged Higgs mass in the Georgi-Machacek model.