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 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).