Probability of finding at least one TAR jet, where the p_T-leading TAR jet passes the m_Wcand and D₂^β=1 requirements, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=500 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1000 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1700 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected+1σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected-1σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected+2σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected-2σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) for m_Z'=0.5 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) for m_Z'=1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) for m_Z'=1.7 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) for m_Z'=2.1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=2.1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Data overlaid on SM background yields stacked in each SR and CR category after the fit to data ('Post-fit'). The yields in the SR are broken down into their contributions to the individual bins. The maximum-likelihood estimators are set to the conditional values of the CR-only fit, and propagated to SR and CRs.

Dominant sources of uncertainty for three dark Higgs scenarios after the fit to data. The uncertainties are quantified in terms of their contribution to the fitted signal uncertainty that is expressed relative to the theory prediction. Three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_χ=1.0, sinθ=0.01 and m_χ=200 GeV are considered, which are indicated using the (m_Z', m_s) format in units of GeV in the table columns.

Cumulative efficiencies in the merged category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_χ=1.0, sinθ=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_χ=200 GeV considering s→W(ℓν)W(qq) decays only.

Cumulative efficiencies in the resolved category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_χ=1.0, sinθ=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_χ=200 GeV considering s→W(ℓν)W(qq) decays only.

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={300, 350, 400, 500, 750} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={1000, 1700} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={2100, 2500, 2900, 3300} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the FCNC top-quark candidate in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the SM top-quark candidate in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the transverse momentum of the Z boson candidate in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the third lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gbb signal.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gbb signal.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gtt combination.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gtt combination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

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

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

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

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

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

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

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicity distribution in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Average transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of the number of charged particles in the event for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of pseudorapidity for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicity distributions in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Extrapolated average transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of the number of charged particles in the event for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of pseudorapidity for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Charged-particle multiplicity distribution in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Average transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of the number of charged particles in the event for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of pseudorapidity for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicity distributions in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Extrapolated average transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of the number of charged particles in the event for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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