Summary of observed and expected background yields in the SR after the likelihood fit under the background-only hypothesis.

The rejection factor (inverse of the efficiency) for jets that have the other origins (background jets) are shown. The background jet rejection factor is calculated using pre-selected large-$R$ jets in the sample of simulated $Z\rightarrow\nu\nu$ + jets events, dominated by initial state radiation (ISR) jets. The efficiency correction factors are applied on the background rejection for the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The boson-tagging efficiency for jets arising from $Z/h$ bosons decaying into $b\bar{b}$ (signal jets). The signal jet efficiency of $Z_{bb}$/$h_{bb}$-tagging is evaluated using a sample of pre-selected large-$R$ jets ($p_{\textrm{T}}>200~\textrm{GeV}, |\eta|<2.0, m_{J} > 40~\textrm{GeV}$) in the simulated $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model signal events with $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}},~\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}) \ge 400~\textrm{GeV}$. The jets are matched with generator-level $Z/h$-bosons by $\Delta R<1.0$ which decay into $b\bar{b}$. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The rejection factor (inverse of the efficiency) for jets that have the other origins (background jets) are shown. The background jet rejection factor is calculated using pre-selected large-$R$ jets in the sample of simulated $Z\rightarrow\nu\nu$ + jets events, dominated by initial state radiation (ISR) jets. As for the $Z_{bb}$/$h_{bb}$-tagging, the rejection is shown as the function of number of $b$- or $c$-quarks contained in the large-$R$ jet within $\Delta R<1.0$. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The total post-fit uncertainty in each of the SRs and VRs.

Summary of the observed data and predicted SM background in all SRs. The background prediction in SR-4Q (SR-2B2Q) is obtained by a background-only fit to CR0L-4Q (CR0L-2B2Q). The total systematic uncertainty on the background prediction is shown by the hatched area. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\textrm{GeV}$. The bottom panel shows the statistical significance of the discrepancy between the observed number of events and the SM expectation.

Number of observed data events and the SM backgrounds in the SRs and the CR0L bins. The SM backgrounds are predicted by the background-only fits. Note that the relative uncertainty on the expected yield in the CRs between the reducible backgrounds are identical, given that a common normalization factor is assigned for all of them in the fit. Yields for negligible backgrounds are indicated by "0.0000001±0.0000001" in the table.

Number of observed data events and the post-fit SM background prediction in the VR1L(1Y) bins and the corresponding CR1L(1Y) bins. "-" indicates negligibly small contribution. Note that the relative uncertainty on the expected yield in the CRs between the reducible backgrounds are identical, given that a common normalization factor is assigned for all of them in the fit. Yields for negligible backgrounds are indicated by "0.0000001±0.0000001" in the table.

$m_{\textrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{1})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $D_2(J_{1})$ in SR-4Q-VV. For $D_2$, the cut value applied for $V_{qq}$-tagging ($D_{2,\text{cut}}$) is subtracted as the off-set so that $D_2-D_{2,\text{cut}}(J)<0$ represents $J$ passing the $D_2$ selection. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{2})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $D_2(J_{2})$ in SR-4Q-VV. For $D_2$, the cut value applied for $V_{qq}$-tagging ($D_{2,\text{cut}}$) is subtracted as the off-set so that $D_2-D_{2,\text{cut}}(J)<0$ represents $J$ passing the $D_2$ selection. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

$m_{\textrm{T2}}$ distributions in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{bb})$ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m_{\textrm{eff}} $ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

$m_{\textrm{T2}}$ distributions in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{bb})$ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m_{\textrm{eff}} $ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=75$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=75$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=50$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=50$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=25$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ models. The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ models. The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1C1-WW) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-Wh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-Zh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-hh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-4Q-VV, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-2B2Q-VZ, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-2B2Q-Vh, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1C1-WW) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-Wh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-Zh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-hh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\Sigma E_{T}$ vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV

$\Sigma E_{T}$ vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

Distribution (events/100 GeV) of the reconstructed $m_{tb}$ for data and backgrounds in the 0-lepton channel's the signal region 3 after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Distribution (events/100 GeV) of the reconstructed $m_{tb}$ for data and backgrounds in the 0-lepton channel's validation region before the fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the pre-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained before the fit, too. There is also the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 2j1b signal region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 3j1b signal region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 2j2b signal region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 3j2b signal region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 2j1b control region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 3j1b control region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 2j1b validation region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 3j1b validation region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and left-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=0.5. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and left-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=1.0. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and left-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=2.0. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and right-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=0.5. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and right-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=1.0. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and right-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=2.0. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.

95% CL limits on the coupling value ($g^{\prime}/g$) and the $W^{\prime}$-boson mass for left-handed $W^{\prime}$-boson couplings. The area above the line is excluded.

95% CL limits on the coupling value ($g^{\prime}/g$) and the $W^{\prime}$-boson mass for right-handed $W^{\prime}$-boson couplings. The area above the line is excluded.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=1$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=0.5$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=2$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=1$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=0.5$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=2$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=1$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=0.5$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=2$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=1$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=0.5$.

The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=2$.

Summary of the observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for $\mathrm{LQ}_{\mathrm{mix}}^{\mathrm{d}}$ pair production as a function of $m_{\mathrm{LQ}_{\mathrm{mix}}^{\mathrm{d}}}$ under the assumptions of B(LQ$\rightarrow t\mu$)=1.

Summary of observed and predicted yields in the four signal region categories. The background prediction is shown after the combined likelihood fit to data under the background-only hypothesis across all control region and signal region categories. The expected signal yields that are obtained by using their theoretical cross sections are also shown with their pre-fit uncertainties, assuming B=1 and $\mu$=1. The "Other" contribution is dominated by $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ and $t\bar{t}WW$ in the $3\ell$ SRs, whereas it is dominated by $tWZ$ and $t\bar{t}WW$ in the $4\ell$ SRs. Dashes refer to components that are negligible or not applicable.

Summary of the data, background and signal yields in the four signal region categories. The background prediction is shown before the combined likelihood fit to data. Dashes (--) refer to components that are negligible or not applicable.

Summary of the data and background yields in the seven control region categories. The background prediction is shown before the combined likelihood fit to data. Dashes (--) refer to components that are negligible or not applicable.

Summary of the data and background yields in the seven control region categories. The background prediction is shown after the combined likelihood fit to data under the background-only hypothesis across all control region categories. Dashes (--) refer to components that are negligible or not applicable.

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.

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.

The mass planes of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidates for the 2Pass selections of the analysis, shown for the VBF $\kappa_{2V} = 0$ HH samples.

The mass planes of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidates for the 2Pass selections of the analysis, shown for the $m_{X} = 1$ TeV spin-0 narrow-width resonance HH samples.

Observed values of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the resolved (dotted green) and boosted (dashed blue) analyses, and their combination (solid black), with all other coupling modifiers fixed to their SM predictions.

Expected values of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the resolved (dotted green) and boosted (dashed blue) analyses, and their combination (solid black), with all other coupling modifiers fixed to their SM predictions.

Observed $-2\ln\Lambda$ values of boosted-only result in the $\kappa_{\Lambda}-\kappa_{2V}$ plane.

Observed $-2\ln\Lambda$ values of resolved-only result in the $\kappa_{\Lambda}-\kappa_{2V}$ plane.

Observed $-2\ln\Lambda$ values of combination result in the $\kappa_{\Lambda}-\kappa_{2V}$ plane.

Expected $-2\ln\Lambda$ values of boosted-only result in the $\kappa_{\Lambda}-\kappa_{2V}$ plane.

Expected $-2\ln\Lambda$ values of resolved-only result in the $\kappa_{\Lambda}-\kappa_{2V}$ plane.

Expected $-2\ln\Lambda$ values of combination result in the $\kappa_{\Lambda}-\kappa_{2V}$ plane.

Expected (dashed black lines) and observed (solid black lines) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of spin-0 heavy resonances with narrow width assumptions. The SM H → bb branching ratio is assumed in both cases. The ±1$\sigma$ and ±2$\sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown as coloured bands.

Expected (dashed black lines) and observed (solid black lines) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of spin-0 heavy resonances with broad width assumptions. The SM H → bb branching ratio is assumed in both cases. The ±1$\sigma$ and ±2$\sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown as coloured bands.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the production cross-sections of the combined VBF HH process as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ . The expected exclusion limits assume no HH production and are obtained using a fit to the data with the background-only hypothesis. The red line shows the theory prediction for the VBF HH cross-section as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ where all other parameters and couplings are set to their SM values.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the production cross-sections of the combined HH process as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ . The expected exclusion limits assume no HH production and are obtained using a fit to the data with the background-only hypothesis. The red line shows the theory prediction for the HH cross-section as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ where all other parameters and couplings are set to their SM values.

Observed −2 ln Λ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ with the $\kappa_{2V}$ and $\kappa_{V}$ modifiers fixed to unity.

Expected −2 ln Λ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ with the $\kappa_{2V}$ and $\kappa_{V}$ modifiers fixed to unity.

Cumulative acceptance times efficiency as a function of resonance mass for each event selection step for the narrow-width signal

Cumulative acceptance times efficiency as a function of resonance mass for each event selection step for the broad-width signal

Cumulative acceptance times efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for each event selection step for the nonresonant signal.

The distributions of the invariant mass of the HH system for various values of $\kappa_{2V}$ .