Transverse-momentum spectra ratios of $\mathrm{D^0}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidityto the INEL>0 event class.

Transverse-momentum spectra ratios of $\mathrm{D_s^+}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidityto the INEL>0 event class.

Transverse-momentum spectra ratios of $\mathrm{\Lambda_c^+}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidityto the INEL>0 event class.

The $\mathrm{D_s^+ / D^0}$ ratio measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidity

The $\mathrm{D_s^+ / D^0}$ ratio measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidity

The $\mathrm{\Lambda_c^+ / D^0}$ ratio measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the V0M estimator at forward rapidity

The $\mathrm{\Lambda_c^+ / D^0}$ ratio measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the V0M estimator at forward rapidity

The extrapolated $p_\mathrm{T}$-integrated $\mathrm{\Lambda_c^+ / D^0}$ ratio measured as a function of $\langle \mathrm{d}N_\mathrm{ch}/\mathrm{d}\eta \rangle$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV

Transverse-momentum spectra of $\mathrm{D^0}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidity.

Transverse-momentum spectra of $\mathrm{D_s^+}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidity.

Transverse-momentum spectra of $\mathrm{\Lambda_c^+}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidity.

Transverse-momentum spectra ratios of $\mathrm{D^0}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidityto the INEL>0 event class.

Transverse-momentum spectra ratios of $\mathrm{D_s^+}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidityto the INEL>0 event class.

Transverse-momentum spectra ratios of $\mathrm{\Lambda_c^+}$ hadrons measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV for different multiplicity classes selected with the $N_\mathrm{trkl}$ estimator at midrapidityto the INEL>0 event class.

The visible $p_\mathrm{T}$-integrated $\mathrm{D_s^+ / D^0}$ ratio measured as a function of $\langle \mathrm{d}N_\mathrm{ch}/\mathrm{d}\eta \rangle$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV

The visible $p_\mathrm{T}$-integrated $\mathrm{\Lambda_c^+ / D^0}$ ratio measured as a function of $\langle \mathrm{d}N_\mathrm{ch}/\mathrm{d}\eta \rangle$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV

The extrapolated $p_\mathrm{T}$-integrated $\mathrm{D_s^+ / D^0}$ ratio measured as a function of $\langle \mathrm{d}N_\mathrm{ch}/\mathrm{d}\eta \rangle$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{{s}} = 13$~TeV

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of h-h correlation function with $3<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of $K_S^0$-h correlation function with $3<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of $K_S^0$-h correlation function with $3<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation function with $3<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation function with $3<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of h-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of h-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of $K_S^0$-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of $K_S^0$-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $2.5<y<3$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $3<y<3.25$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $3.25<y<3.5$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $3.5<y<4$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $2.5<y<2.75$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $2.75<y<3$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $3<y<3.25$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $3.25<y<3.5$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$ at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $3.5<y<4$ rapidity interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of rapidity at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $1<p_T<2$ GeV/$c$ interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of rapidity at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $2<p_T<5$ GeV/$c$ interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of rapidity at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $5<p_T<8$ GeV/$c$ interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of rapidity at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $1<p_T<2$ GeV/$c$ interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of rapidity at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $2<p_T<5$ GeV/$c$ interval.

$\phi$ meson production cross section $\mathrm{d}^2\sigma/(\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{T})$ as a function of rapidity at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV in pp collisions, in the $5<p_T<10$ GeV/$c$ interval.

$\phi$ meson production integrated cross section as a function of $\sqrt{s}$ for $1.5 < p_\mathrm{T} <5$ GeV/$c$ at forward rapidity in pp collisions.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gbb signal.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gbb signal.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gtt combination.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gtt combination.

Acceptances for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-A. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.

Acceptances for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.

Acceptances for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.

Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-A. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.

Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-B. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.

Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-C. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.

Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-A. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.

Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-B. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.

Acceptance times efficiency for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-A.

Acceptance times efficiency for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.

Acceptance times efficiency for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.

Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-A.

Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-B.

Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-C.

Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-A.

Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-B.

95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-A.

95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.

95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.

95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-A.

95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-B.

95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-C.

95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-A.

95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-B.

Signal region yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gbb model.

Signal region yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gtt model for the 0-lepton channel.

Signal region yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gtt model for the 1-lepton channel.

Combination of two 0-lepton and 1-lepton signal regions yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gtt model.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

+1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

-1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

+1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

-1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at no b-jet requirement. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at least 1 b-jet. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at least 2 b-jets. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Summary of all 15 signal regions (post-fit).

Signal region yielding the best-expected CLs value, the best expected CLs value, and the corresponding observed CLs value for the 2Step grid.

Signal region yielding the best-expected CLs value, the best expected CLs value, and the corresponding observed CLs value for the pMSSM grid.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section for 2-step signal points for the best-expected signal region.

Performance of the 8j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ distribution with the TZCR1 event selection except for the requirement on $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$. The variables $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$ are constructed in the same way as $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{T}$ but treating the leading photon transverse momentum as invisible. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.

Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$ distribution with the TZCR1 event selection except for the requirement on $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$. The variables $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$ are constructed in the same way as $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{T}$ but treating the leading photon transverse momentum as invisible. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.

Comparison of the observed data ($n_\text{obs}$) with the predicted background ($n_\text{exp}$) in the validation and signal regions. The background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between data and predicted background, where the significance is based on the total uncertainty ($\sigma_\text{tot}$).

Jet multiplicity distributions for events where exactly two signal leptons are selected. No correction factors are included in the background normalizations. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.

Jet multiplicity distributions for events where exactly one lepton plus one $\tau$ candidate are selected. No correction factors are included in the background normalizations. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.

The $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ distribution in SR1. In the plot, the full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement on $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow. Benchmark signal models are overlaid for comparison. The benchmark models are specified by the gluino and stop masses, given in TeV in the table.

The $m_\text{T}$ distribution in SR1. In the plot, the full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement on $m_\text{T}$. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow. Benchmark signal models are overlaid for comparison. The benchmark models are specified by the gluino and stop masses, given in TeV in the table.

Expected (black dashed) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ versus $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ for gluino-mediated stop production.

Observed (red solid) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ versus $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ for gluino-mediated stop production.

Expected (black dashed) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ versus $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ for direct stop production.

Observed (red solid) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ versus $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ for direct stop production.

The expected upper limits on $T$ quark pair production times the squared branching ratio for $T \rightarrow tZ$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass.

The observed upper limits on $T$ quark pair production times the squared branching ratio for $T \rightarrow tZ$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass.

The expected limits on $T$ quarks as a function of the branching ratios $B\left(T \rightarrow bW\right)$ and $B\left(T \rightarrow tH\right)$ for a $T$ quark with a mass of 800 GeV. The $T$ is assumed to decay in three possible ways: $T \to tZ$, $T \to tH$, and $T \to bW$.

The observed limits on $T$ quarks as a function of the branching ratios $B\left(T \rightarrow bW\right)$ and $B\left(T \rightarrow tH\right)$ for a $T$ quark with a mass of 800 GeV. The $T$ is assumed to decay in three possible ways: $T \to tZ$, $T \to tH$, and $T \to bW$.

The $m_\text{T}$ distribution in the WVR2-tail validation region which has the same preselection and jet $p_\text{T}$ requirements as SR2.

The $am_\text{T2}$ distribution in the WVR2-tail validation region which has the same preselection and jet $p_\text{T}$ requirements as SR2.

Large-radius jet mass ($R=1.2$), decomposed into the number of small-radius jet constituents. The lower panel shows the ratio of the total data to the total prediction (summed over all jet multiplicities). Events are required to have one lepton, four jets with $p_\text{T}>80,50,40,40$ GeV, at least one $b$-tagged jet, $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}>200$ GeV, and $m_\text{T}>30$ GeV.

Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^\tau$ in data for a selection enriched in $t\bar{t}$ events with one hadronically decaying $\tau$. Events that have no hadronic $\tau$ candidate (that passes the Loose identification criteria, as well as other requirements) are not shown in the plot.

Upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for the gluino-mediated stop models.

Upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for the models with direct stop pair production.

Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for the gluino-mediated stop models. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for models with direct stop pair production. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Expected $CL_s$ values for the gluino-mediated stop models.

Observed $CL_s$ values for the gluino-mediated stop models.

Expected $CL_s$ values for the direct stop pair production models.

Observed $CL_s$ values for the direct stop pair production models.

Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Acceptance for SR1 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR1 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR2 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR2 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR3 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR3 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Efficiency for SR1 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR1 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR2 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR2 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR3 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR3 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the best expected signal region.

Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.

Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.

Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA450 signal region.

Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRB signal region.

Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the best expected signal region.

Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA250.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA250.

Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA350.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA350.

Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA450 signal region.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA450.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA450.

Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRB signal region.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRB.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRB.

Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the best expected signal region.

Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.

Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.

Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA450 signal region.

Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRB signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the best expected signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA250 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA350 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA450 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRB signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the best expected signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA250 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA350 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA450 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRB signal region.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.

Ratio of fiducial cross sections measured for $W^{\pm} Z$ production at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV and $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV. The first systematic uncertainty is the combined systematic uncertainty excluding the luminosity uncertainty, the second is the luminosity uncertainty.

Ratio of fiducial cross sections measured for $W^{+} Z$ and $W^{-} Z$ production.

Cross section extrapolated to total phase space and all W and Z boson decays. The first systematic uncertainty is the combined systematic uncertainty excluding theory and luminosity uncertainties, the second is the theory uncertainty and the third is the luminosity uncertainty.

The measured fiducial cross sections are corrected to the dressed level. The ratio of $C_{WZ}^{\textrm{dressed}}/C_{WZ}^{\textrm{Born}}$ factors presented in this table can be used to correct fiducial integrated cross sections from dressed to Born level.

Measured fiducial cross section as a function of the exclusive jet multiplicity, where jets are particle level jets with anti-kt R=0.4. The first systematic uncertainty is the combined systematic uncertainty excluding theory and luminosity uncertainties, the second is the luminosity uncertainty. The last bin is a cross section for all events above the lower end of the bin.

The total cross section is measured at dressed level and can also be corrected to Born level use this acceptance correction factor.

Correlation matrix for the total uncertainties, including all sources of systematic and statistical uncertainties, for the differential cross section as a function of the exclusive jet multiplicity.

All correlated systematic relative uncertainties in percent on measured differential cross section as a function of the exclusive jet multiplicity.

Missing transverse momentum distribution after SR3b selection, beside the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ requirement. The results in the signal region correspond to the last inclusive bin. The systematic uncertainties include theory uncertainties for the backgrounds with prompt SS/3L and the full systematic uncertainties for data-driven backgrounds. For illustration the distribution for a benchmark SUSY scenario ($pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$, $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$, $m_{\tilde g}=1.2$ TeV, $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}=0.7$ TeV) is also shown.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar q(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR0b3j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar q(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR0b3j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar qWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR0b5j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar qWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR0b5j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ production and $\tilde b_1\to tW\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR1b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ production and $\tilde b_1\to tW\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR1b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR3b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR3b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].