Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for all Stealth SUSY benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow cbs$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow lcb$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \tau\tau\nu$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for all Stealth SUSY benchmark samples. The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow cbs$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow lcb$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Endcap Muon RoI Cluster trigger efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \tau\tau\nu$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The trigger efficiency is defined as the fraction of LLPs selected by the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the LLP decay position. The trigger is efficient for hadronic decays of LLPs that occur anywhere from the outer regions of the HCal to the middle station of the MS. These efficiencies are obtained from the subset of events with only a single LLP decay in the muon spectrometer in order to ensure that the result of the trigger is due to a single burst of MS activity. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The relative differences in efficiencies of the benchmark samples are a result of the different kinematics.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for all Stealth SUSY benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow cbs$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow lcb$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Barrel MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \tau\tau\nu$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV scalar benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for all Stealth SUSY benchmark samples. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow cbs$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow lcb$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Endcap MS vertex efficiencies (in %) for baryogenesis $\chi \rightarrow \tau\tau\nu$ benchmark samples ($m_{h}=125$ GeV). The vertex reconstruction efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated LLP decays in the MS fiducial volume that match a reconstructed vertex ($\Delta R(\textrm{LLP,vertex}) = 0.4$) passing the baseline event selection and satisfying the vertex isolation criteria. A vertex is considered matched to a displaced decay if the vertex is within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of the simulated decay position. The MS vertex efficiency is parameterized as a function of the LLP decay position.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=5$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=5$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=5$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=15$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=15$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=15$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=40$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=40$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma/\sigma_{\textrm{SM}}\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=125$ GeV and $m_{s}=40$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=250$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=500$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=500$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=500$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=800$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=800$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=800$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1200$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1200$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1200$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1500$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1500$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=1500$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2000$ GeV for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2000$ GeV for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits $\sigma \times B_{\tilde{g} \rightarrow \tilde{S} g}$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=2000$ GeV for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=100$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV and $m_{s}=8$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV and $m_{s}=25$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=200$ GeV and $m_{s}=50$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV and $m_{s}=50$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=400$ GeV and $m_{s}=100$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV and $m_{s}=50$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=600$ GeV and $m_{s}=150$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV and $m_{s}=50$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV and $m_{s}=150$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $m_{\Phi}=1000$ GeV and $m_{s}=400$ GeV scalar benchmark sample for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \nu b \bar{b}$ channel with $m_{\chi}=100$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow c b s$ channel with $m_{\chi}=100$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 1MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for the combination of 1MSVx and 2MSVx strategies.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow l c b$ channel with $m_{\chi}=100$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \tau \tau \nu$ channel with $m_{\chi}=10$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \tau \tau \nu$ channel with $m_{\chi}=30$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \tau \tau \nu$ channel with $m_{\chi}=50$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Upper 95% CL limits on $\sigma\times B$ as a function of the proper lifetime $c\tau$ for $\chi \rightarrow \tau \tau \nu$ channel with $m_{\chi}=100$ GeV ($m_{h}=125$ GeV) for 2MSVx strategy.

Post-fit distributions of a background-only fit to the SR and the CRs of the NN output in the SR for the $tc\gamma$ left-handed coupling. In addition, the expected signal is overlaid for an effective coupling strength corresponding to the observed limit multiplied by a factor of ten.

Post-fit distributions of a background-only fit to the SR and the CRs of the NN output in the SR for the $tc\gamma$ right-handed coupling. In addition, the expected signal is overlaid for an effective coupling strength corresponding to the observed limit multiplied by a factor of ten.

Distribution of $m^{vis}_{HH}$ after applying all the event selection that define the $HH$ SR, except the requirement on $m^{vis}_{HH}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. The $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ signal is overlaid for two resonance mass hypotheses with a cross-section set to the expected limit, while all backgrounds are pre-fit. The first and the last bins contains the under-flow and over-flow bin entries, respectively. The hatched bands represent combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Event yields of the various estimated backgrounds and data, computed in the signal region of the search for $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are quoted. The background yields and uncertainties are pre-fit and are found to be similar to those post-fit.

Event yields of the various estimated backgrounds and data, computed in the signal region of the search for $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are quoted. The background yields and uncertainties are pre-fit and are found to be similar to those post-fit.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy, narrow-width, scalar resonance decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons ($X\rightarrow HH$). The final state used in the search consists of a boosted $b\bar{b}$ pair and a boosted hadronically decaying $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ pair, and the SM braching ratio of the Higgs boson are assumed. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit are indicated by the error bands. Two different requirements are applied on the visible mass of the two boosted Higgs boson candidates for the resonance mass hypotheses of 1.6 TeV and 2.5 TeV, leading to discontinuities in the limits (at 1.6 TeV, the difference between imposing no requirement and $m^{vis}_{HH}>900$ GeV is less than 1% though).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy, narrow-width, scalar resonance decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons ($X\rightarrow HH$). The final state used in the search consists of a boosted $b\bar{b}$ pair and a boosted hadronically decaying $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ pair, and the SM braching ratio of the Higgs boson are assumed. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit are indicated by the error bands. Two different requirements are applied on the visible mass of the two boosted Higgs boson candidates for the resonance mass hypotheses of 1.6 TeV and 2.5 TeV, leading to discontinuities in the limits (at 1.6 TeV, the difference between imposing no requirement and $m^{vis}_{HH}>900$ GeV is less than 1% though).

The systematic uncertainty on the unfolded distribution as a function of minimax-mbl, broken down by components.

The covariance matrix for the unfolded, normalized data in bins of minimax-mbl shown in Figure 2. Redundant entries are suppressed.

Leading lepton transverse momentum distribution for events passing the signal selection in bins of minimax-mbl. The data here are not unfolded.

Sub-leading lepton transverse momentum distribution for events passing the signal selection in bins of minimax-mbl. The data here are not unfolded.

Leading lepton pseudorapidity distribution for events passing the signal selection in bins of minimax-mbl. The data here are not unfolded.

Sub-leading lepton pseudorapidity distribution for events passing the signal selection in bins of minimax-mbl. The data here are not unfolded.

Leading b-jet transverse momentum distribution for events passing the signal selection in bins of minimax-mbl. The data here are not unfolded.

Sub-leading b-jet transverse momentum distribution for events passing the signal selection in bins of minimax-mbl. The data here are not unfolded.

Leading b-jet pseudorapidity distribution for events passing the signal selection in bins of minimax-mbl. The data here are not unfolded.

Sub-leading b-jet pseudorapidity distribution for events passing the signal selection in bins of minimax-mbl. The data here are not unfolded.

The detector-level minimax-m(bl) distribution for events entering the Z+jets control region.

The detector-level minimax-m(bl) distribution for events entering the same-sign lepton control region.

Overview of the detector efficiency correction factors, $C_{Z}$ , for the electron and muon channels and their systematic uncertainty contributions.

Overview of the detector efficiency correction factors, $C_{Z}$ , for the electron and muon channels and their systematic uncertainty contributions.

Overview of the detector efficiency correction factors, $C_{Z}$ , for the electron and muon channels and their systematic uncertainty contributions.

Measured inclusive cross-section in the fiducial volume in the electron and muon decay channels at Born level and their combination as well as the theory prediction at NNLO in $\alpha_{s}$ using the CT14 PDF set.

Measured inclusive cross-section in the fiducial volume in the electron and muon decay channels at Born level and their combination as well as the theory prediction at NNLO in $\alpha_{s}$ using the CT14 PDF set.

Measured inclusive cross-section in the fiducial volume in the electron and muon decay channels at Born level and their combination as well as the theory prediction at NNLO in $\alpha_{s}$ using the CT14 PDF set.

The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle level.

The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle level.

The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle level.

The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle level.

The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle level.

The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle level.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow ee$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) and Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. for the electron momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Elec. (Reco), Elec. (ID), Isolation, Trigger and Charge-ID denote the correlated uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the electron reconstruction, identification, isolation, trigger and charge-identification efficiencies; The uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow ee$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) and Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. for the electron momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Elec. (Reco), Elec. (ID), Isolation, Trigger and Charge-ID denote the correlated uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the electron reconstruction, identification, isolation, trigger and charge-identification efficiencies; The uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow ee$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) and Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. for the electron momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Elec. (Reco), Elec. (ID), Isolation, Trigger and Charge-ID denote the correlated uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the electron reconstruction, identification, isolation, trigger and charge-identification efficiencies; The uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow ee$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) and Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. for the electron momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Elec. (Reco), Elec. (ID), Isolation, Trigger and Charge-ID denote the correlated uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the electron reconstruction, identification, isolation, trigger and charge-identification efficiencies; The uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow ee$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) and Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. for the electron momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Elec. (Reco), Elec. (ID), Isolation, Trigger and Charge-ID denote the correlated uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the electron reconstruction, identification, isolation, trigger and charge-identification efficiencies; The uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow ee$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) and Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. for the electron momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Elec. (Reco), Elec. (ID), Isolation, Trigger and Charge-ID denote the correlated uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the electron reconstruction, identification, isolation, trigger and charge-identification efficiencies; The uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on bare level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on bare level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on bare level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on bare level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on bare level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on bare level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.

Measured combined normalized differential cross-section in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle.

Measured combined normalized differential cross-section in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle.

Measured combined normalized differential cross-section in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle.

Measured combined normalized differential cross-section in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle.

Measured combined normalized differential cross-section in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle.

Measured combined normalized differential cross-section in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of dilepton invariant mass $m_{ll}$ , the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of dilepton invariant mass $m_{ll}$ , the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of dilepton invariant mass $m_{ll}$ , the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of dilepton invariant mass $m_{ll}$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of dilepton invariant mass $m_{ll}$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of dilepton invariant mass $m_{ll}$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of lepton pseudorapidity $\eta$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of lepton pseudorapidity $\eta$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of lepton pseudorapidity $\eta$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of lepton pseudorapidity $\eta$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of lepton pseudorapidity $\eta$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of lepton pseudorapidity $\eta$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of dilepton transverse momentum. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of dilepton transverse momentum. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of dilepton transverse momentum. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of dilepton transverse momentum. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of dilepton transverse momentum. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of dilepton transverse momentum. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.

The measured normalized cross section as a function of $p_{ll}$ for the electron and muon channels and the combined result as well as their ratio together with the total uncertainties, shown as a blue band. The pull distribution between the electron and muon channels, defined as the difference between the two channels divided by the combined uncorrelated uncertainty, is also shown. The $p_{ll}$ distribution is split into linear and logarithmic scales at 30 GeV.

The measured normalized cross section as a function of $p_{ll}$ for the electron and muon channels and the combined result as well as their ratio together with the total uncertainties, shown as a blue band. The pull distribution between the electron and muon channels, defined as the difference between the two channels divided by the combined uncorrelated uncertainty, is also shown. The $p_{ll}$ distribution is split into linear and logarithmic scales at 30 GeV.

The measured normalized cross section as a function of $p_{ll}$ for the electron and muon channels and the combined result as well as their ratio together with the total uncertainties, shown as a blue band. The pull distribution between the electron and muon channels, defined as the difference between the two channels divided by the combined uncorrelated uncertainty, is also shown. The $p_{ll}$ distribution is split into linear and logarithmic scales at 30 GeV.

The measured normalized cross section as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ for the electron and muon channels and the combined result as well as their ratio together with the total uncertainties, shown as a blue band. The pull distribution between the electron and muon channels, defined as the difference between the two channels divided by the combined uncorrelated uncertainty, is also shown.

The measured normalized cross section as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ for the electron and muon channels and the combined result as well as their ratio together with the total uncertainties, shown as a blue band. The pull distribution between the electron and muon channels, defined as the difference between the two channels divided by the combined uncorrelated uncertainty, is also shown.

The measured normalized cross section as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ for the electron and muon channels and the combined result as well as their ratio together with the total uncertainties, shown as a blue band. The pull distribution between the electron and muon channels, defined as the difference between the two channels divided by the combined uncorrelated uncertainty, is also shown.

Comparison of the normalized $p_{ll}$ distributions predicted by different computations: Pythia8 with the AZ tune, Powheg+Pythia8 with the AZNLO tune, Sherpa v2.2.1 and RadISH with the Born level combined measurement. The uncertainties of the measurement are shown as vertical bars and uncertainties of the Sherpa and RadISH predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.

Comparison of the normalized $p_{ll}$ distributions predicted by different computations: Pythia8 with the AZ tune, Powheg+Pythia8 with the AZNLO tune, Sherpa v2.2.1 and RadISH with the Born level combined measurement. The uncertainties of the measurement are shown as vertical bars and uncertainties of the Sherpa and RadISH predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.

Comparison of the normalized $p_{ll}$ distributions predicted by different computations: Pythia8 with the AZ tune, Powheg+Pythia8 with the AZNLO tune, Sherpa v2.2.1 and RadISH with the Born level combined measurement. The uncertainties of the measurement are shown as vertical bars and uncertainties of the Sherpa and RadISH predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.

Comparison of the normalized $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ distributions predicted by different computations: Pythia8 with the AZ tune, Powheg+Pythia8 with the AZNLO tune, Sherpa v2.2.1 and RadISH with the Born level combined measurement. The uncertainties of the measurement are shown as vertical bars and uncertainties of the Sherpa and RadISH predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.

Comparison of the normalized $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ distributions predicted by different computations: Pythia8 with the AZ tune, Powheg+Pythia8 with the AZNLO tune, Sherpa v2.2.1 and RadISH with the Born level combined measurement. The uncertainties of the measurement are shown as vertical bars and uncertainties of the Sherpa and RadISH predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.

Comparison of the normalized $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ distributions predicted by different computations: Pythia8 with the AZ tune, Powheg+Pythia8 with the AZNLO tune, Sherpa v2.2.1 and RadISH with the Born level combined measurement. The uncertainties of the measurement are shown as vertical bars and uncertainties of the Sherpa and RadISH predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.

Comparison of the normalized $p_{ll}$ distribution in the range $p_{ll}$ > 10 GeV. The Born level combined measurement is compared with predictions by Sherpa v2.2.1, fixed-order NNLOjet and NNLOjet supplied with NLO electroweak corrections. The uncertainties in the measurement are shown as vertical bars and the uncertainties in the predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.

Comparison of the normalized $p_{ll}$ distribution in the range $p_{ll}$ > 10 GeV. The Born level combined measurement is compared with predictions by Sherpa v2.2.1, fixed-order NNLOjet and NNLOjet supplied with NLO electroweak corrections. The uncertainties in the measurement are shown as vertical bars and the uncertainties in the predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.

Comparison of the normalized $p_{ll}$ distribution in the range $p_{ll}$ > 10 GeV. The Born level combined measurement is compared with predictions by Sherpa v2.2.1, fixed-order NNLOjet and NNLOjet supplied with NLO electroweak corrections. The uncertainties in the measurement are shown as vertical bars and the uncertainties in the predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.

The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at dressed level.

The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at dressed level.

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.

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. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

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 contours are excluded. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

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. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.

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 contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.

Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.

Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.

Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

Expected background and observed number of events in different jet and $b$-tag multiplicity bins.

Cut flow for a model of top-squark pair production with the top squark decaying to a $b$-quark and a chargino. The chargino decays through the non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda^{''}_{323}$ via a virtual top squark to $bbs$ quark triplets ($m_{\tilde{t}}$ = 800 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}}$ = 750 GeV). The multijet trigger consists of four jets satisfying $p_{\text{T}}\geq(100)120$ GeV for the 2015-2016 (2017-2018) data period. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed. The numbers in $N_{\text{weighted}}$ are normalized by the integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.