Distribution of the resonance mass in the c-tag Signal Region of the $ ce$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the b-tag Signal Region of the $ ce$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the untagged Signal Region of the $ c\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the c-tag Signal Region of the $ c\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the b-tag Signal Region of the $ c\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the 0-tag Signal Region of the $ be$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the 1-tag Signal Region of the $ be$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the 2-tag Signal Region of the $ be$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the 0-tag Signal Region of the $ b\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the 1-tag Signal Region of the $ b\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

Distribution of the resonance mass in the 2-tag Signal Region of the $ b\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into electrons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $qe$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into muons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $q\mu$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into electrons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $ce$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into muons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $c\mu$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into electrons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $be$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into muons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $b\mu$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $qe$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $q\mu$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $ce$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $c\mu$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $be$ channel.

The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $b\mu$ channel.

The signal selection efficiency x acceptance summed over all signal regions, for all masses and LQ decay channels considered.

The observed and expected limits for all masses and LQ decay channels considered.

Cutflow Table in the electron channel, considering signal samples with LQ mass of 1 TeV.

Cutflow Table in the muon channel, considering signal samples with LQ mass of 1 TeV.

Summary of the 95% C.L. upper limits on $\sigma_{ZH} BR(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ for the dilepton channel in the resolved analysis. The observed limits are shown, together with the expected limits (dotted black lines). In the case of the expected limits, one- and two-standard-deviation uncertainty bands are also displayed. The data was published in JHEP 10 (2018) 031.

Efficiency and acceptance for simulated $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ samples in two signal regions (SR) of the analysis, one with two $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the High Purity Category (HPC), and the other with one $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidate in the High Purity Category (HPC) and one in the Low Purity Category (LPC).

Efficiency and acceptance for simulated $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ samples in two signal regions (SR) of the analysis, one with two $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the High Purity Category (HPC), and the other with one $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidate in the High Purity Category (HPC) and one in the Low Purity Category (LPC).

Event yields for a simulated $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ sample with $m_a = 17.5\,\text{GeV}$. The signal sample is produced with cross section equals to the standard model $pp\to ZH$, i.e. $0.88\,\text{pb}$. Cut 0 corresponds to the initial number of events. Cut 1 requires the single lepton trigger. Cut 2 requires 2 identified leptons. Cut 3 requires the Z-boson mass window. Cut 4 requires 2 reconstructed $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates. Cut 5a requires 2 identified $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region. Cut 6a requires the 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region to be inside the Higgs mass window. Cut 5b requires 2 identified $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region. Cut 6b requires the 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region to be inside the Higgs mass window.

Event yields for a simulated $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ sample with $m_a = 17.5\,\text{GeV}$. The signal sample is produced with cross section equals to the standard model $pp\to ZH$, i.e. $0.88\,\text{pb}$. Cut 0 corresponds to the initial number of events. Cut 1 requires the single lepton trigger. Cut 2 requires 2 identified leptons. Cut 3 requires the Z-boson mass window. Cut 4 requires 2 reconstructed $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates. Cut 5a requires 2 identified $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region. Cut 6a requires the 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region to be inside the Higgs mass window. Cut 5b requires 2 identified $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region. Cut 6b requires the 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region to be inside the Higgs mass window.

Background yield table for Z+jets, $t\bar{t}$, and rare sources. Observed data yield. Signal $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ yield with $m_a = 20\,\text{GeV}$. The signal sample is produced with cross section equals to the standard model $pp\to ZH$, i.e. $0.88\,\text{pb}$, with a branching ratio set to 1 for the $H \rightarrow aa$ decay, whereas the ATLAS figure attached to this entry instead uses the upper-limit branching ratio (smaller than 1). The table includes the yields in two signal regions with leptons consistent with an on-shell Z-boson decay, one with 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region and one with 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region. The table also includes the yields in four control regions, one with leptons consistent with an on-shell Z-boson decay and 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the Low Purity Category (LPC), and three others where the leptons are not consistent an on-shell Z-boson decay.

Background yield table for Z+jets, $t\bar{t}$, and rare sources. Observed data yield. Signal $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ yield with $m_a = 20\,\text{GeV}$. The signal sample is produced with cross section equals to the standard model $pp\to ZH$, i.e. $0.88\,\text{pb}$. The table includes the yields in two signal regions with leptons consistent with an on-shell Z-boson decay, one with 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region and one with 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region. The table also includes the yields in four control regions, one with leptons consistent with an on-shell Z-boson decay and 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the Low Purity Category (LPC), and three others where the leptons are not consistent an on-shell Z-boson decay.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

The $E_T^{miss}$ model predicted trigger rate as a function of $\mu$ for the cell $E_T^{miss}$ algorithm with a threshold of $80\,$GeV and $120\,$GeV, assuming no additional pile-up mitigation.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger efficiency, shown as a function of $p_T(\mu\mu)$ in $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events.

The efficiencies in the plot are shown for events satisfying a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection and with $p_T(\mu\mu)$ larger than $150\,$GeV vs pile-up for each of the four years of data taking.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$) in the year 2017.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$) in the year 2017.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$) in the year 2017.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger efficiency is shown as a function of mean pile-up for events satisfying a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection and with $p_T(\mu\mu)$ larger than $150\,$GeV in three periods during the year 2017.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Turn-on efficiency curves are shown for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events for three algorithms: the cell algorithm alone, the pufit algorithm alone and the combined cell+pufit algorithm. The thresholds are set such that the algorithms have equal rates, and the data were recorded in the year 2018. Here the trigger efficiency is shown with respect to $p_T(\mu\mu)$.

Turn-on efficiency curves are shown for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events for three algorithms: the cell algorithm alone, the pufit algorithm alone and the combined cell+pufit algorithm. The thresholds are set such that the algorithms have equal rates, and the data were recorded in the year 2018. Here the trigger efficiency is shown with respect to the offline $E_T^{miss}$ calculation with muons treated as being invisible.

Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for a $p_T(\mu\mu)$ threshold of 150 GeV.

Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an offline $E_T^{miss}$ threshold of 150 GeV.

Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an $p_T(\mu\mu)$ threshold of 175 GeV.

Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an offline $E_T^{miss}$ threshold of 175 GeV.

HLT_xe70_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2015.

HLT_xe90_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2016.

HLT_xe110_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2016.

HLT_xe110_pufit trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2017. This trigger included an implicit requirement of cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV.

HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65 trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2018.

HLT_xe110_pufit_xe70 trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2018.

Full-chain trigger efficiencies for each year as a function of $p_T(\mu\mu)$. The efficiency corresponds to that of the lowest unprescaled trigger that is adjusted throughout each year.

Full-chain trigger efficiencies for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $p_T(\mu\mu)>150$ GeV. The efficiency corresponds to that of the lowest unprescaled trigger that is adjusted throughout the year.

Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $W\rightarrow e\nu$ and $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selections with offline $E_T^{miss}>150\,$GeV.

Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $t\bar t$ with offline $E_T^{miss}>150\,$GeV.

Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $W\rightarrow e\nu$ and $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selections with offline $E_T^{miss}>175\,$GeV.

Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $t\bar t$ with offline $E_T^{miss}>175\,$GeV.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma( p p \rightarrow H) \cdot (H\rightarrow Z \gamma)$

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 $x = m^{reco}_{t\bar{t}}/\sqrt{s}$.

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 observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contour are excluded.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contour 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 $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 $S$ 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 $\it{m}^{\mathrm{R=1.2}}_{1}$ 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 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 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 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.

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-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-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}})= (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}})= (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}})= (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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

Measured and predicted fiducial cross-sections in both the lllljj and ll$\nu\nu$jj channels for the inclusive ZZjj processes. Uncertainties due to different sources are presented.

Measured and predicted fiducial cross-sections in both the lllljj and ll$\nu\nu$jj channels for the inclusive ZZjj processes. Uncertainties due to different sources are presented.

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

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

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

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.

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

Correlation matrix between the fiducial cross sections for the four individual decay final states and the $ZZ^{*}$ normalisation factor.

Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum $p_{T}^{4l}$ of the Higgs boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 . Measured value in the last bin is un upper limit at 95% CL.

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum $p_{T}^{4l}$ of the Higgs boson.

Differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass $m_{12}$ of the leading Z boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass $m_{12}$ of the leading Z boson.

Differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass $m_{34}$ of the subleading Z boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass $m_{34}$ of the subleading Z boson.

Differential fiducial cross section for the rapidity $|y_{4l}|$ of the Higgs boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the rapidity $|y_{4l}|$ of the Higgs boson.

Differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $|\cos\theta^{*}|$ of the leading Z boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $|\cos\theta^{*}|$ of the leading Z boson.

Differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $\cos\theta_{1}$ of the anti-lepton from the leading Z boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $\cos\theta_{1}$ of the anti-lepton from the leading Z boson.

Differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $\cos\theta_{2}$ of the anti-lepton from the subleading Z boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $\cos\theta_{2}$ of the anti-lepton from the subleading Z boson.

Differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi$ of the decay planes of the two reconstructed Z bosons. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi$ of the decay planes of the two reconstructed Z bosons.

Differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi_{1}$ of the decay plane of the leading Z boson and the plane formed between its four-momentum and the z-axis. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi_{1}$ of the decay plane of the leading Z boson and the plane formed between its four-momentum and the z-axis.

Differential fiducial cross section for the jet multiplicity $N_{jets}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the jet multiplicity $N_{jets}$.

Differential fiducial cross section for the inclusive jet multiplicity $N_{jets}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Differential fiducial cross section for the number of b-quark initiated jets $N_{b-jets}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the number of b-quark initiated jets $N_{b-jets}$.

Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$ in events with at least one jet. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$ in events with at least one jet.

Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the subleading jet $p_{T}^{sublead.jet}$ in events with at least two jets. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the subleading jet $p_{T}^{sublead.jet}$ in events with at least two jets.

Differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the two highest-pT jets $m_{jj}$ in events with at least two jets. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the two highest-pT jets $m_{jj}$ in events with at least two jets.

Differential fiducial cross section for the distance between the two highest-pT jets in pseudorapidity $\Delta\eta_{jj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the distance between the two highest-pT jets in pseudorapidity $\Delta\eta_{jj}$.

Differential fiducial cross section for the distance between the two highest-pT jets in $\phi$ $\Delta\phi_{jj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the distance between the two highest-pT jets in $\phi$ $\Delta\phi_{jj}$.

Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system, in events with at least one jet $p_{T}^{4lj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system, in events with at least one jet $p_{T}^{4lj}$.

Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus di-jet system, in events with at least two jets $p_{T}^{4ljj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 . Measured value in the last bin is un upper limit at 95% CL.

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus di-jet system, in events with at least two jets $p_{T}^{4ljj}$.

Differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the four lepton plus jet system in events with at least one jet $m_{4lj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the four lepton plus jet system in events with at least one jet $m_{4lj}$.

Differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the four lepton plus di-jet system in events with at least two jets $m_{4ljj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the four lepton plus di-jet system in events with at least two jets $m_{4ljj}$.

Differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$.

Differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$ in $ll\mu\mu$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$ in $llee$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass m12 vs. m34 in $ll\mu\mu$ and $llee$ final states.

Differential fiducial cross section of the $p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution in $|y_{4l}|$ bins. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section of the $p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution in $|y_{4l}|$ bins.

Differential fiducial cross section of the $p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution in $N_{jets}$ bins. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section of the $p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution in $N_{jets}$ bins.

Differential fiducial cross section for transverse momentum of the four lepton system vs. the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$p_{T}^{4lj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for transverse momentum of the four lepton system vs. the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$p_{T}^{4lj}$.

Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system vs the invariant mass of the four lepton plus jet system $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$m_{4lj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system vs the invariant mass of the four lepton plus jet system $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$m_{4lj}$.

Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton vs the transverse momentum of the leading jet $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$p_{T}^{l.jet}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton vs the transverse momentum of the leading jet $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$p_{T}^{lead.jet}$.

Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet vs the rapidity of the leading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$vs.$|y^{lead.jet}|$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet vs the rapidity of the leading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$vs.$|y^{lead.jet}|$.

Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet vs the transverse momentum of the subleading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$vs.$p_{T}^{sublead.jet}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet vs the transverse momentum of the subleading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$vs.$p_{T}^{sublead.jet}$.

Differential fiducial cross section for the leading Z boson mass $m_{12}$ in $4\mu$ and $4e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Differential fiducial cross section for the leading Z boson mass $m_{12}$ in $2e2\mu$ and $2\mu2e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the leading Z boson mass $m_{12}$ in $4l$ and $2l2l$ final states.

Differential fiducial cross section for the subleading Z boson mass $m_{34}$ in $4\mu$ and $4e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Differential fiducial cross section for the subleading Z boson mass $m_{34}$ in $2e2\mu$ and $2\mu2e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the subleading Z boson mass $m_{34}$ in $4l$ and $2l2l$ final states.

Differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi$ of the decay planes of the two reconstructed Z bosons in $4\mu$ and $4e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi$ of the decay planes of the two reconstructed Z bosons in $2e2\mu$ and $2\mu2e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi$ of the decay planes of the two reconstructed Z bosons in $4l$ and $2l2l$ final states.

Differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$ in $4\mu$ and $4e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$ in $2\mu2e$ and $2e2\mu$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .

Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$ in $4l$ and $2l2l$ final states.