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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM1.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM2.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-HM3.

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

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp1.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp2.

Acceptance across the SUSY signal grid for SR-Comp3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the HAHM model.

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the FRVZ model.

90&percnt; CL exclusion limit contours on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as functions of the &gamma;_d mass and kinetic mixing parameter &epsilon; for the HAHM model. These exclusions assume Higgs boson branching fractions to dark photons within a 0.01&percnt; and 10&percnt; range.

90&percnt; CL exclusion limit contours on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as functions of the &gamma;_d mass and kinetic mixing parameter &epsilon; for the FRVZ model. These exclusions assume Higgs boson branching fractions to dark photons within a 0.01&percnt; and 10&percnt; range.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the HAHM signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the dark photon p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the FRVZ signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the dark photon p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the HAHM signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the FRVZ signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for a dark photon mass of 0.4 GeV, generated according to the HAHM and FRVZ signal models. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &gamma;_d p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for a dark photon mass of 0.4 GeV, generated according to the HAHM and FRVZ signal models. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into an electron pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the HAHM signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the dark photon p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into an electron pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the FRVZ signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the dark photon p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a pair of electrons. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the HAHM signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon. The decrease in efficiency, visible at 0.1, is due to the transition between the region of the phase space where eLJs are identified from merged EM showers with two tracks, to the one where eLJs are obtained by the clustering of two resolved electrons.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a pair of electrons. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the FRVZ signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon. The decrease in efficiency, visible at 0.1, is due to the transition between the region of the phase space where eLJs are identified from merged EM showers with two tracks, to the one where eLJs are obtained by the clustering of two resolved electrons.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a pair of electrons. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for a dark photon mass of 0.1 GeV, generated according to the HAHM and FRVZ signal models. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &gamma;_d p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a pair of electrons. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for a dark photon mass of 0.1 GeV, generated according to the HAHM and FRVZ signal models. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon.

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the HAHM model, obtained from the &mu;LJ&ndash;&mu;LJ signal region.

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the FRVZ model, obtained from the &mu;LJ&ndash;&mu;LJ signal region.

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the HAHM model, obtained from the &mu;LJ&ndash;eLJ signal region.

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the FRVZ model, obtained from the &mu;LJ&ndash;eLJ signal region.

Acceptance times efficiencies (A&times;&varepsilon;) as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the HAHM process for the three signal regions of the analysis, eLJ-eLJ, eLJ-&mu;LJ and &mu;LJ-&mu;LJ. The decrease of the A&times;&varepsilon; is expected for increasing masses of the &gamma;_d, as its decay products become resolved and are no longer reconstructed as LJs. The local minimum around m_{&gamma;_d}=2 GeV observed for the eLJ-&mu;LJ distribution is expected, as the reconstruction efficiency for eLJs with merged EM showers decreases before the reconstruction of eLJ with two resolved electrons becomes efficient.

Acceptance times efficiencies (A&times;&varepsilon;) as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the FRVZ process for the three signal regions of the analysis, eLJ-eLJ, eLJ-&mu;LJ and &mu;LJ-&mu;LJ. The decrease of the A&times;&varepsilon; is expected for increasing masses of the &gamma;_d, as its decay products become resolved and are no longer reconstructed as LJs. The local minimum around m_{&gamma;_d}=2 GeV observed for the eLJ-&mu;LJ distribution is expected, as the reconstruction efficiency for eLJs with merged EM showers decreases before the reconstruction of eLJ with two resolved electrons becomes efficient.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 80 to 110 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 110 to 160 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 160 to 210 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 210 to 260 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 260 to 310 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 310 to 400 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 400 to 500 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 500 to 600 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 30 to 40 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 30 to 40 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 30 to 40 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 30 to 40 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 30 to 40 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 2.1 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 40 to 60 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 40 to 60 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 40 to 60 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 40 to 60 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 40 to 60 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 2.1 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 60 to 80 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 60 to 80 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 60 to 80 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 60 to 80 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 60 to 80 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 2.1 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 80 to 110 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 80 to 110 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 80 to 110 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 80 to 110 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 80 to 110 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 2.1 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 110 to 160 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 110 to 160 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 110 to 160 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 110 to 160 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 110 to 160 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 2.1 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 160 to 210 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 160 to 210 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 160 to 210 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 160 to 210 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 160 to 210 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 2.1 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 210 to 260 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 210 to 260 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 210 to 260 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 210 to 260 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 210 to 260 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 2.1 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 260 to 310 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 260 to 310 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 260 to 310 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 260 to 310 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 260 to 310 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 2.1 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 310 to 400 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 310 to 400 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 310 to 400 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 310 to 400 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 400 to 500 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 400 to 500 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 400 to 500 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Differential Jet Shape RHO as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 400 to 500 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape 1-PSI as a function of jet transverse momentum for an r value of 0.3 and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape 1-PSI as a function of jet transverse momentum for an r value of 0.3 and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape 1-PSI as a function of jet transverse momentum for an r value of 0.3 and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape 1-PSI as a function of jet transverse momentum for an r value of 0.3 and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape 1-PSI as a function of jet transverse momentum for an r value of 0.3 and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape 1-PSI as a function of jet transverse momentum for an r value of 0.3 and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 2.1 to 2.8.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 30 to 40 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 30 to 40 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 30 to 40 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 30 to 40 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 30 to 40 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 2.1 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 30 to 40 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 40 to 60 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 40 to 60 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 40 to 60 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 40 to 60 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 40 to 60 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 2.1 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 40 to 60 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 60 to 80 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 60 to 80 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 60 to 80 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 60 to 80 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 60 to 80 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 2.1 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 60 to 80 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 80 to 110 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 80 to 110 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 80 to 110 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 80 to 110 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 80 to 110 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 2.1 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 80 to 110 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 110 to 160 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 110 to 160 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 110 to 160 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 110 to 160 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 110 to 160 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 2.1 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 110 to 160 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 160 to 210 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 160 to 210 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 160 to 210 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 160 to 210 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 160 to 210 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 2.1 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 160 to 210 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 210 to 260 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 210 to 260 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 210 to 260 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 210 to 260 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 210 to 260 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 2.1 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 210 to 260 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 260 to 310 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 260 to 310 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 260 to 310 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 260 to 310 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 260 to 310 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 2.1 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 260 to 310 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 310 to 400 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 310 to 400 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 310 to 400 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 310 to 400 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 310 to 400 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 400 to 500 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 0.3. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 400 to 500 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.3 to 0.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 400 to 500 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0.8 to 1.2. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 400 to 500 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 1.2 to 2.1. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 400 to 500 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.

Measured Integrated Jet Shape PSI as a function of r for jet transverse momentum from 500 to 600 GeV and absolute values of the jet rapidity from 0 to 2.8. This is additional data, not in the paper.