Observed $m_{t\bar{t}}^{reco}$ distributions in data for SR$2b$, shown together with the result of the fit with the three-shape-parameter function. The error bars indicate the effect of the fit parameter uncertainty on the background prediction. The bin width of the distributions is chosen to be the same as that used in the background parameterization.

Observed and expected upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction of the $Z'_{TC2} \rightarrow t\bar{t}$ as a function of the $Z'_{TC2}$ mass ($\Gamma/m = 1.2$%).

Fit parameter values obtained from fits to data in the two signal regions. The fit function is $f(x) = p_{0} (1-x)^{p_{1}} x^{p_{2} + p_{3} \log(x)}$, where $x = m^{reco}_{t\bar{t}}/\sqrt{s}$.

The measured inclusive fiducial cross section measurements. The WW fiducial region is defined by requiring two same-sign leptons with $p_{T}>20$, $|\eta|<2.5$, and $m_{ll}>20$, and two jets with $m_{jj}>500$ and $|\Delta \eta_{jj}|>2.5$. The jets at generator level are clustered from stable particles, excluding neutrinos, using the anti-kt clustering algorithm with R = 0.4, and are required to have $p_{T}>50$ and $|\eta|<4.7$. The jets within $\Delta R<0.4$ of the selected charged leptons are not included. The WZ fiducial region is defined by requiring three leptons with $p_{T}>20$, $|\eta|<2.5$, a pair of opposite charge same-flavor lepton pair with $|m_{ll}-m_{Z}|<15$, and two jets with $m_{jj}>500$ and $|\Delta \eta_{jj}|>2.5$.

Distributions of $m_{jj}$ in the WW signal region.

Distributions of $m_{ll}$ in the WW signal region.

Distributions of $m_{jj}$ in the WZ signal region.

Distributions of BDT score in the WZ signal region.

Absolute WW cross section in $m_{jj}$ bins.

Normalized WW cross section in $m_{jj}$ bins.

Absolute WW cross section in $m_{ll}$ bins.

Normalized WW cross section in $m_{ll}$ bins.

Absolute WW cross section in $p_{T}^{l max}$ bins.

Normalized WW cross section in $p_{T}^{l max}$ bins.

Absolute WZ cross section in $m_{jj}$ bins.

Normalized WZ cross section in $m_{jj}$ bins.

Distributions of $m_{T}^{WW}$ in the WW signal region.

Distributions of $m_{T}^{WZ}$ in the WZ signal region.

Observed and expected lower and upper 95\% confidence level limits in TeV$^{-4}$ on the parameters of the quartic, obtained without using any unitarization procedure.

Observed and expected lower and upper 95\% confidence level limits in TeV$^{-4}$ on the parameters of the quartic by cutting the EFT expansion at the unitarity limit.

Selection acceptance times efficiency for the 1 lepton signal events from MC simulations as a function of the resonance mass for VBF production.

Selection acceptance times efficiency for the 2 leptons signal events from MC simulations as a function of the resonance mass for ggF/DY production.

Selection acceptance times efficiency for the 2 leptons signal events from MC simulations as a function of the resonance mass for VBF production.

The fractions of signal events passing the VBF requirement on the RNN score as functions of the resonance mass for both VBF and ggF production. Information on the RNN model, such as the architecture, network weights and features scaling files are provided as additional resources.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the ggF production cross section of Radions in their $WW+ZZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the VBF production cross section of Radions in their $WW+ZZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the DY production cross section of HVT $W'$ in their $WZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the VBF production cross section of HVT $W'$ in their $WZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the DY production cross section of HVT $Z'$ in their $WW$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the VBF production cross section of HVT $Z'$ in their $WW$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the ggF production cross section of Gravitons in their $WW+ZZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the VBF production cross section of Gravitons in their $WW+ZZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the ggF production cross section of Radions in their $WW$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the VBF production cross section of Radions in their $WW$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the ggF production cross section of Radions in their $ZZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the VBF production cross section of Radions in their $ZZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the ggF production cross section of Gravitons in their $WW$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the VBF production cross section of Gravitons in their $WW$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the ggF production cross section of Gravitons in their $ZZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

Upper 95% CLs limits on the VBF production cross section of Gravitons in their $ZZ$ decays as a function of the resonance mass.

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.

Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.

Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.

The distributions of $S$ in SRA-TW. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $\it{m}^{\mathrm{R=1.2}}_{1}$ in SRB-TT. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of R$_{ISR}$ in SRC signal regions before R$_{ISR}$ cuts are applied. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD0. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD1. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD2. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TT. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TW. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-T0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (700,400)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in signal regions SRB-TT, SRB-TW and SRB-T0. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 60000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (500,327)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in regions SRC-1, SRC-2, SRC-3, SRC-4 and SRC-5. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 150000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.384 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD1. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD2. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Signal acceptance in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Mean transverse momentum of inclusive J/psi as a function of the relative charged-particle pseudorapidity density at backward rapidity -4.46 < y_cms < -2.96 (Pb-going direction).

Relative mean transverse momentum of inclusive J/psi as a function of the relative charged-particle pseudorapidity density at forward rapidity 2.03 < y_cms < 3.53 (p-going direction).

Mean transverse momentum of inclusive J/psi as a function of the relative charged-particle pseudorapidity density at backward rapidity -4.46 < y_cms < -2.96 (Pb-going direction).

The $m_{W}^{T}$ distribution from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 2j1t (left) and 3j1t (right) categories for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 2j1t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and b jet momenta system (right), shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distributionfrom the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 2j1t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and b jet momenta system (right), shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distributionfrom the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 2j1t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and b jet momenta system (right), shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distributionfrom the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 2j1t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and b jet momenta system (right), shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distributionfrom the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j1t category: the $p_{T}^{miss}$ in the transverse plane (left) and the value of the MVA b tagger discriminator when applied to the extra jet (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points andthe hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j1t category: the $p_{T}^{miss}$ in the transverse plane (left) and the value of the MVA b tagger discriminator when applied to the extra jet (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points andthe hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j1t category: the $p_{T}^{miss}$ in the transverse plane (left) and the value of the MVA b tagger discriminator when applied to the extra jet (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points andthe hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j1t category: the $p_{T}^{miss}$ in the transverse plane (left) and the value of the MVA b tagger discriminator when applied to the extra jet (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points andthe hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j2t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and non-b-tagged jet system (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j2t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and non-b-tagged jet system (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j2t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and non-b-tagged jet system (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distributions of the two most discriminating variables from data (points) and simulation (shaded histograms) in the 3j2t category: the $|\eta|$ of the non-b-tagged jet $|\eta_{j^{'}}|$ (left) and the invariant mass of lepton and non-b-tagged jet system (right) are shown for the muon (upper) and electron (lower) channels, respectively. The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and MC statistical uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the MC prediction.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Distribution of the multivariate discriminators, comparing data to simulation normalised after the fit procedure, for the muon channel on the left and for the electron channel on the right, for 2j1t (upper), 3j1t (middle), and 3j2t (lower). The vertical lines on the points and the hatched bands show the experimental and fit uncertainties, respectively. The expected distribution from the STq,b+STb,q processes (multiplied by a factor of 1000) is shown by the solid blue line. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit.

Values of the third-row elements of the CKM matrix inferred from low-energy measurements with the respective values of the top quark decay branching fractions. The q in bs{V_{tq}} and \mathcal{B}(t o Wq) in the first column refers to b, s, and d quarks, according to the quark label shown in the header row.

For each of the production and decay vertices, the cross section times branching fraction for the corresponding signal process from simulation. The uncertainties shown includethose from the factorisation and renormalisation scales, the PDFs, and any experimental uncer-tainties, where appropriate.

The sources and relative values in percent of the systematic uncertainty in the measurement of the STb,b cross section. The uncertainties are broken up into profiled and nonprofiled sources.

The signal strengths obtained under SM assumptions.

Results obtained under SM assumptions.

Results obtained under first BSM scenario.

Results obtained under second BSM scenario.

Observed and expected multivariate discriminant distribution in the $\ell\ell\ell\ell jj$ SR.

Observed and expected multivariate discriminant distribution in the $\ell\ell\nu\nu jj$ SR.

The expected exclusion limit contours at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

The +1 $\sigma$ expected exclusion limit contours at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

The -1 $\sigma$ expected exclusion limit contours at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

The +1 $\sigma$ observed exclusion limit contours at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

The -1 $\sigma$ observed exclusion limit contours at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

The observed and expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

Expected and observed 95% CL exclusion upper limits on the higgsino production ($\tilde{\chi}\tilde{\chi} \equiv \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$) cross-section in the signal of $h \tilde{G} h \tilde{G} $ as a function of the higgsino mass.

The distribution of $S_{E_\mathrm{T}^{\mathrm{miss}}}$ after the selection of diphoton candidates with $120~GeV < m_{\gamma\gamma} < 130~GeV$. Expected distributions are shown for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2} \to W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} $ signal with $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})=200~GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=0.5~GeV$, and the $h\tilde{G} h\tilde{G}$ signal with $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=150~GeV$ and $m(\tilde{G})=1~MeV$. These overlaid signal points are representative of the model kinematics. The sum in quadrature of the MC statistical and experimental systematic uncertainties in the total background is shown as the hatched bands, while the theoretical uncertainties in the background normalisation are not included. The $t\bar{t}\gamma$ and $t\bar{t}\gamma\gamma$ processes have a negligible contribution and are not represented. Overflow events are included in the rightmost bin. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the background.

Acceptance and efficiency for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signal in each category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the $h \tilde{G} h \tilde{G}$ signal in each category.

Cut flow for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signal sample at $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})=200~GeV$, $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=0.5~GeV$, with 260000 entries.

Cut flow for the $h \tilde{G} h \tilde{G}$ signal sample at $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=150~GeV$, $m(\tilde{G})=1~MeV$, with 50000 entries.

Event yields in the range 120 <$m\gamma\gamma$< 130 GeV for data, signal models, the SM Higgs boson background and non-resonant background in each analysis category after the fit.

Event yields in the range 120 <$m\gamma\gamma$< 130 GeV for data, signal models, the SM Higgs boson background and non-resonant background in each analysis category before the fit.

Acceptance for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the leptonic channel.

Efficiency for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the leptonic channel.

Acceptance for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the hadronic channel.

Efficiency for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the hadronic channel.

Acceptance for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the rest channel.

Efficiency for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the rest channel.

Acceptance for the $h \tilde{G} h \tilde{G}$ signals in the each channel.

Efficiency for the $h \tilde{G} h \tilde{G}$ signals in the each channel.

Source radius $r_0$ as a function of〈$m_\mathrm{T}$〉for the assumption of a purely Gaussian source. The blue crosses result from fitting the p–p correlation function with the strong Argonne v18 potential. The green squared crosses (red triangular crosses) result from fitting the p–Λ correlation functions with the strong χEFT LO (NLO) potential. Statistical (lines) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately.

Source radius $r_{core}$ as a function of〈$m_{T}$〉for the assumption of a Gaussian source with added resonances. The blue crosses result from fitting the p–p correlation function with the strong Argonnev18 potential. The green squared crosses (red triangular crosses) result from fitting the p–Λ correlation functions withthe strong χEFT LO (NLO) potential. Statistical (lines) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately.

Source radius as a function of $r_\mathrm{core}$ for the assumption of a Gaussian source with added resonances. The blue crosses result from fitting the p–p correlation function with the strong Argonnev18 potential. The green squared crosses (red triangular crosses) result from fitting the p–Λ correlation functions withthe strong χEFT LO (NLO) potential. Statistical (lines) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately.

Source radius $r_{core}$ as a function of〈$m_{T}$〉for the assumption of a Gaussian source with added resonances. The blue crosses result from fitting the p–p correlation function with the strong Argonnev18 potential. The green squared crosses (red triangular crosses) result from fitting the p–Λ correlation functions withthe strong χEFT LO (NLO) potential. Statistical (lines) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately.

Source radius as a function of $r_\mathrm{core}$ for the assumption of a Gaussian source with added resonances. The blue crosses result from fitting the p–p correlation function with the strong Argonnev18 potential. The green squared crosses (red triangular crosses) result from fitting the p–Λ correlation functions withthe strong χEFT LO (NLO) potential. Statistical (lines) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately.

A plot identical to Fig. 5, where the red p–Λ points are obtained by using an Usmani potential tuned to point iv) described in Table 1 in Phys.Lett.B 850 (2024) 138550