Distributions of $p_{T}^{Z_1}$. Small background contributions are denoted as "other backgrounds", including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes.

Distributions of $p_{T}^{Z_2}$. Small background contributions are denoted as "other backgrounds", including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes.

Distributions of the mass difference of the $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ candidates. Small background contributions are denoted as "other backgrounds", including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes.

The pDNN output discriminant variable distributions for low mass with a signal sample at 35 GeV and 51 GeV, respectively.

The pDNN output discriminant variable distributions for high mass with a signal sample at 35 GeV and 51 GeV, respectively.

Mass spectra of $m_{Z2}$ for the pDNN-selected events with a signal sample at 15 GeV.

Mass spectra of $m_{Z1}$ for the pDNN-selected events with a signal sample at 51 GeV.

The $p_0$-value scan across the Z' mass signal regions.

95% CL upper limits (expected and observed) on the cross-sections times branching fraction. The discontinuity at 42 GeV represents the border of the low/high mass classifiers.

95% CL upper limits (expected and observed) on the coupling parameter. The discontinuity at 42 GeV represents the border of the low/high mass classifiers.

The parameterized mass resolution $\sigma_{m_{\mu\mu}}$ as a function of $m_{Z'}$ using fully simulated $Z' \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-$ events.

The transverse momentum $p_{T}$ distributions for each muon (ordered with $p_{T}$ from (a) to (d)). In addition to the major background from the SM $Z(Z^*)\rightarrow 4\mu$ production, other backgrounds, including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data, and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes, are included in the plots. Examples of the Z' signal from $pp\rightarrow Z'\mu^+\mu^- \rightarrow 4\mu$ process with masses of 15 and 51 GeV are also shown in the plots.

The transverse momentum $p_{T}$ distributions for each muon (ordered with $p_{T}$ from (a) to (d)). In addition to the major background from the SM $Z(Z^*)\rightarrow 4\mu$ production, other backgrounds, including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data, and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes, are included in the plots. Examples of the Z' signal from $pp\rightarrow Z'\mu^+\mu^- \rightarrow 4\mu$ process with masses of 15 and 51 GeV are also shown in the plots.

The transverse momentum $p_{T}$ distributions for each muon (ordered with $p_{T}$ from (a) to (d)). In addition to the major background from the SM $Z(Z^*)\rightarrow 4\mu$ production, other backgrounds, including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data, and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes, are included in the plots. Examples of the Z' signal from $pp\rightarrow Z'\mu^+\mu^- \rightarrow 4\mu$ process with masses of 15 and 51 GeV are also shown in the plots.

The transverse momentum $p_{T}$ distributions for each muon (ordered with $p_{T}$ from (a) to (d)). In addition to the major background from the SM $Z(Z^*)\rightarrow 4\mu$ production, other backgrounds, including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data, and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes, are included in the plots. Examples of the Z' signal from $pp\rightarrow Z'\mu^+\mu^- \rightarrow 4\mu$ process with masses of 15 and 51 GeV are also shown in the plots.

Kinematic distributions of the pre-selected $4\mu$ events. The plots (a) to (d) are the $\eta$ distributions of the 4 muons ($p_{T}$ ordered). In addition to the major background from the SM $Z(Z^*)\rightarrow 4\mu$ production, other backgrounds, including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data, and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes, are included in the plots. Examples of the Z' signal from $pp\rightarrow Z'\mu^+\mu^- \rightarrow 4\mu$ process with masses of 15 and 51 GeV are also shown in the plots.

Kinematic distributions of the pre-selected $4\mu$ events. The plots (a) to (d) are the $\eta$ distributions of the 4 muons ($p_{T}$ ordered). In addition to the major background from the SM $Z(Z^*)\rightarrow 4\mu$ production, other backgrounds, including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data, and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes, are included in the plots. Examples of the Z' signal from $pp\rightarrow Z'\mu^+\mu^- \rightarrow 4\mu$ process with masses of 15 and 51 GeV are also shown in the plots.

Kinematic distributions of the pre-selected $4\mu$ events. The plots (a) to (d) are the $\eta$ distributions of the 4 muons ($p_{T}$ ordered). In addition to the major background from the SM $Z(Z^*)\rightarrow 4\mu$ production, other backgrounds, including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data, and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes, are included in the plots. Examples of the Z' signal from $pp\rightarrow Z'\mu^+\mu^- \rightarrow 4\mu$ process with masses of 15 and 51 GeV are also shown in the plots.

Kinematic distributions of the pre-selected $4\mu$ events. The plots (a) to (d) are the $\eta$ distributions of the 4 muons ($p_{T}$ ordered). In addition to the major background from the SM $Z(Z^*)\rightarrow 4\mu$ production, other backgrounds, including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data, and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes, are included in the plots. Examples of the Z' signal from $pp\rightarrow Z'\mu^+\mu^- \rightarrow 4\mu$ process with masses of 15 and 51 GeV are also shown in the plots.

Kinematic distributions of the pre-selected $4\mu$ events. Plots (a) to (d) are the angular separations, $\Delta R$ of the two muons that formed $Z_1$ and $Z_2$, and the mass distributions of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$. In addition to the major backgrounds from the SM $Z(Z^*)\rightarrow 4\mu$ production, other background, including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data, and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes, are included in the plots. Examples of the Z' signal from $pp\rightarrow Z'\mu^+\mu^- \rightarrow 4\mu$ process with masses of 15 and 51 GeV are also shown in the plots.

Kinematic distributions of the pre-selected $4\mu$ events. Plots (a) to (d) are the angular separations, $\Delta R$ of the two muons that formed $Z_1$ and $Z_2$, and the mass distributions of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$. In addition to the major backgrounds from the SM $Z(Z^*)\rightarrow 4\mu$ production, other background, including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data, and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes, are included in the plots. Examples of the Z' signal from $pp\rightarrow Z'\mu^+\mu^- \rightarrow 4\mu$ process with masses of 15 and 51 GeV are also shown in the plots.

Kinematic distributions of the pre-selected $4\mu$ events. Plots (a) to (d) are the angular separations, $\Delta R$ of the two muons that formed $Z_1$ and $Z_2$, and the mass distributions of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$. In addition to the major backgrounds from the SM $Z(Z^*)\rightarrow 4\mu$ production, other background, including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data, and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes, are included in the plots. Examples of the Z' signal from $pp\rightarrow Z'\mu^+\mu^- \rightarrow 4\mu$ process with masses of 15 and 51 GeV are also shown in the plots.

Kinematic distributions of the pre-selected $4\mu$ events. Plots (a) to (d) are the angular separations, $\Delta R$ of the two muons that formed $Z_1$ and $Z_2$, and the mass distributions of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$. In addition to the major backgrounds from the SM $Z(Z^*)\rightarrow 4\mu$ production, other background, including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data, and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes, are included in the plots. Examples of the Z' signal from $pp\rightarrow Z'\mu^+\mu^- \rightarrow 4\mu$ process with masses of 15 and 51 GeV are also shown in the plots.

Data and MC comparison of the $Z \to 4\mu$ invariant mass using pre-selected 4$\mu$ events. Figure (b) shows the distribution between 80 GeV~and 110 GeV~in Figure (a). Figure (c) shows the distribution of transverse momentum of $4\mu$ system. In addition to the major background from the SM $Z(Z^*)\rightarrow 4\mu$ production, other backgrounds, including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data, and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes, are included in the plots. Examples of the Z' signal from $pp\rightarrow Z'\mu^+\mu^- \rightarrow 4\mu$ process with masses of 15 and 51 GeV are also shown in the plots.

Data and MC comparison of the $Z \to 4\mu$ invariant mass using pre-selected 4$\mu$ events. Figure (b) shows the distribution between 80 GeV~and 110 GeV~in Figure (a). Figure (c) shows the distribution of transverse momentum of $4\mu$ system. In addition to the major background from the SM $Z(Z^*)\rightarrow 4\mu$ production, other backgrounds, including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data, and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes, are included in the plots. Examples of the Z' signal from $pp\rightarrow Z'\mu^+\mu^- \rightarrow 4\mu$ process with masses of 15 and 51 GeV are also shown in the plots.

Data and MC comparison of the $Z \to 4\mu$ invariant mass using pre-selected 4$\mu$ events. Figure (b) shows the distribution between 80 GeV~and 110 GeV~in Figure (a). Figure (c) shows the distribution of transverse momentum of $4\mu$ system. In addition to the major background from the SM $Z(Z^*)\rightarrow 4\mu$ production, other backgrounds, including 4$\mu$ events containing non-prompt muons estimated from data, and from $ttV$, $VVV$, and Higgs boson production processes, are included in the plots. Examples of the Z' signal from $pp\rightarrow Z'\mu^+\mu^- \rightarrow 4\mu$ process with masses of 15 and 51 GeV are also shown in the plots.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $p_{T}^{\ell\ell}$ in the 0+1-jet fiducial region using the regularized in-likelihood unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $\Delta\phi_{\ell\ell}$ in the 0+1-jet fiducial region using the regularized in-likelihood unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $p_{T}^{\ell 0}$ in the 0+1-jet fiducial region using the regularized in-likelihood unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $\cos\theta^{*}$ in the 0+1-jet fiducial region using the regularized in-likelihood unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $|Y_{j0}|$ in the 0+1-jet fiducial region using the regularized in-likelihood unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $m_{\ell\ell}$ versus $N_{jet}$ in the 0-jet and 1-jet fiducial region using the regularized in-likelihood unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $\Delta\phi_{\ell\ell}$ versus $N_{jet}$ in the 0-jet and 1-jet fiducial region using the regularized in-likelihood unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $Y_{\ell\ell}$ versus $N_{jet}$ in the 0-jet and 1-jet fiducial region using the regularized in-likelihood unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $p_{T}^{\ell\ell}$ versus $N_{jet}$ in the 0-jet and 1-jet fiducial region using the regularized in-likelihood unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $p_{T}^{\ell 0}$ versus $N_{jet}$ in the 0-jet and 1-jet fiducial region using the regularized in-likelihood unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $\cos\theta^{*}$ versus $N_{jet}$ in the 0-jet and 1-jet fiducial region using the regularized in-likelihood unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $p_{T}^{H}$ in the 0+1-jet fiducial region using the iterative Bayesian unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $m_{\ell\ell}$ in the 0+1-jet fiducial region using the iterative Bayesian unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $Y_{\ell\ell}$ in the 0+1-jet fiducial region using the iterative Bayesian unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $p_{T}^{\ell\ell}$ in the 0+1-jet fiducial region using the iterative Bayesian unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $\Delta\phi_{\ell\ell}$ in the 0+1-jet fiducial region using the iterative Bayesian unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $p_{T}^{\ell 0}$ in the 0+1-jet fiducial region using the iterative Bayesian unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $\cos\theta^{*}$ in the 0+1-jet fiducial region using the iterative Bayesian unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $|Y_{j0}|$ in the 0+1-jet fiducial region using the iterative Bayesian unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $m_{\ell\ell}$ versus $N_{jet}$ in the 0-jet and 1-jet fiducial region using the iterative Bayesian unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $\Delta\phi_{\ell\ell}$ versus $N_{jet}$ in the 0-jet and 1-jet fiducial region using the iterative Bayesian unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $Y_{\ell\ell}$ versus $N_{jet}$ in the 0-jet and 1-jet fiducial region using the iterative Bayesian unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $p_{T}^{\ell\ell}$ versus $N_{jet}$ in the 0-jet and 1-jet fiducial region using the iterative Bayesian unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $p_{T}^{\ell 0}$ versus $N_{jet}$ in the 0-jet and 1-jet fiducial region using the iterative Bayesian unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Measured differential fiducial cross section for $\cos\theta^{*}$ versus $N_{jet}$ in the 0-jet and 1-jet fiducial region using the iterative Bayesian unfolding method. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties from experimental and theory sources as well as background normalization effects and shape effects from background and signal.

Migration Matrices for $m_{\ell\ell}$

Migration Matrices for $p_{T}^{H}$

Migration Matrices for $Y_{\ell\ell}$

Migration Matrices for $p_{T}^{\ell\ell}$

Migration Matrices for $p_{T}^{\ell 0}$

Migration Matrices for $\cos\theta^{*} $

Migration Matrices for $\Delta\phi_{\ell\ell}$

Migration Matrices for $|Y_{j0}|$

Migration Matrices for $M_{\ell\ell} $ versus $ N_{jet}$

Migration Matrices for $Y_{\ell\ell} $ versus $ N_{jet}$

Migration Matrices for $p_{T}^{\ell\ell} $ versus $ N_{jet}$

Migration Matrices for $p_{T}^{\ell 0} $ versus $ N_{jet}$

Migration Matrices for $\cos\theta^{*} $ versus $ N_{jet}$

Migration Matrices for $\Delta\phi_{\ell\ell} $ versus $ N_{jet}$

Correlation Matrices for observed cross-sections for $m_{\ell\ell}$

Correlation Matrices for observed cross-sections for $p_{T}^{H}$

Correlation Matrices for observed cross-sections for $Y_{\ell\ell}$

Correlation Matrices for observed cross-sections for $p_{T}^{\ell\ell}$

Correlation Matrices for observed cross-sections for $p_{T}^{\ell 0}$

Correlation Matrices for observed cross-sections for $\cos\theta^{*} $

Correlation Matrices for observed cross-sections for $\Delta\phi_{\ell\ell}$

Correlation Matrices for observed cross-sections for $|Y_{j0}|$

Correlation Matrices for observed cross-sections for $M_{\ell\ell} $ versus $ N_{jet}$

Correlation Matrices for observed cross-sections for $Y_{\ell\ell} $ versus $ N_{jet}$

Correlation Matrices for observed cross-sections for $p_{T}^{\ell\ell} $ versus $ N_{jet}$

Correlation Matrices for observed cross-sections for $p_{T}^{\ell 0} $ versus $ N_{jet}$

Correlation Matrices for observed cross-sections for $\cos\theta^{*} $ versus $ N_{jet}$

Correlation Matrices for observed cross-sections for $\Delta\phi_{\ell\ell} $ versus $ N_{jet}$

$K^{0}_{S} K^{0}_{S}$ correlation meassurement in $10-20\%$ centrality.

$K^{0}_{S} K^{0}_{S}$ correlation meassurement in $20-30\%$ centrality.

$K^{0}_{S} K^{0}_{S}$ correlation meassurement in $30-40\%$ centrality.

$K^{0}_{S} K^{0}_{S}$ correlation meassurement in $40-50\%$ centrality.

$K^{0}_{S} K^{0}_{S}$ correlation meassurement in $50-60\%$ centrality.

$\Lambda K^{0}_{S} \oplus \overline{\Lambda} K^{0}_{S}$ correlation meassurement in $0-80\%$ centrality.

$\Lambda\Lambda\oplus\overline{\Lambda}\overline{\Lambda}$ correlation meassurement in $0-80\%$ centrality.

The extracted $R_{inv}$ from $K^{0}_{S} K^{0}_{S}$ correlations as a function of centrality.

The extracted $\lambda$ parameters from $K^{0}_{S} K^{0}_{S}$ correlations as a function of centrality.

Extracted effective range ($d_{0}$) and real components of the complex scattering length ($\Re f_{0}$) from the $\Lambda\Lambda\oplus\overline{\Lambda}\overline{\Lambda}$ and $\Lambda K^{0}_{S} \oplus \overline{\Lambda} K^{0}_{S}$ correlations.

Extracted imaginary components of the complex scattering length ($\Im f_{0}$) and real components of the complex scattering length ($\Re f_{0}$) from the $\Lambda K^{0}_{S} \oplus \overline{\Lambda} K^{0}_{S}$ correlation.

Normalisation factors for the major background processes and ttW ($\Delta \eta < 0$) from the fit using only statistical uncertainties (fixing Nuisance Parameters (NP) to their fitted values) to data in all analysis regions.

Normalisation factors for the major background processes and ttW ($\Delta \eta < 0$) from the fit using using both statistical and systematic uncertainties to data in all analysis regions.

Correlation matrix between the Normalisation Factors in the fit using only statistical uncertainties (fixing Nuisance Parameters (NP) to their fitted values) to data in all analysis regions.

The most relevant systematic uncertainties ranked by their impact on the leptonic charge asymmetry ($A_c^{\ell}$) parameter at reconstructed level. The impact of the uncertainties is shown before and after the combined profile-likelihood fit to data in the signal and control regions. Pulls introduced by the fitting procedure are also shown. The entries shown in bold are the uncertainties of the freely floating background normalisations. ME stands for "matrix element", PS for "parton shower" and JER for "jet energy resolution". The gamma-uncertainties refer to the MC statistical uncertainties in a specific region and bin.

The most relevant systematic uncertainties ranked by their impact on the ttW Normalisation Factor ($\Delta \eta < 0$) parameter at reconstructed level. The impact of the uncertainties is shown before and after the combined profile-likelihood fit to data in the signal and control regions. Pulls introduced by the fitting procedure are also shown. ME stands for "matrix element", PS for "parton shower" and JER for "jet energy resolution". The gamma-uncertainties refer to the MC statistical uncertainties in a specific region and bin.

The predicted and observed numbers of events in the control and signal regions. The predictions are shown before the fit to data. The indicated uncertainties consider statistical as well as all experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties. Background categories with event yields with a value of 1.0e-6 have a negligible contribution to the region and are manually set to that value.

The predicted and observed numbers of events in the control and signal regions. The predictions are shown after the fit to data. The indicated uncertainties consider statistical as well as all experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties. Background categories with event yields with a value of 1.0e-6 have a negligible contribution to the region and are manually set to that value.

Event yields of the signal and SM background processes in the six analysis regions after the fit to the data under the $t \rightarrow uX$ hypothesis assuming $m_X = 30$ GeV. Total includes signal and background.The quoted uncertainties take into account correlations and constraints of the nuisance parameters and include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties. Negative correlations between the $t\bar{t} +$ light, $t\bar{t} + \geq1b$ and $t\bar{t} + \geq1c$ modelling uncertainties can make the uncertainty in the total yields smaller than in the individual components.

Event yields of the signal and SM background processes in the six analysis regions after the fit to the data under the $t \rightarrow cX$ hypothesis assuming $m_X = 30$ GeV. Total includes signal and background.The quoted uncertainties take into account correlations and constraints of the nuisance parameters and include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties. Negative correlations between the $t\bar{t} +$ light, $t\bar{t} + \geq1b$ and $t\bar{t} + \geq1c$ modelling uncertainties can make the uncertainty in the total yields smaller than in the individual components.

Event acceptance times efficiency in percent for every $t\rightarrow uX$ and $t\rightarrow cX$ mass signal sample.

Cut flow for the scalar signal in the $t\rightarrow uX$ decay combining both quark and anti-quark samples. Shown for each signal are the corresponding mass, the number of generated events, the number of reconstructed ("Reco") events, the events that pass the lepton triggers, the events that have only one electron ("el") or only one muon ("mu") with p$_{\text{T}}$ larger than 27 GeV, the number of events with at least four jets with p$_{\text{T}}$ larger than 25 GeV, the number of events with at least three $b$-tagged jets at the 70% efficiency working point, and the number of events with at least two $b$-tagged jets at the 60% efficiency working point and at least another one at the 70%. The quoted yields do not include reweighting.

Cut flow for the scalar signal in the $t\rightarrow cX$ decay combining both quark and anti-quark samples. Shown for each signal are the corresponding mass, the number of generated events, the number of reconstructed ("Reco") events, the events that pass the lepton triggers, the events that have only one electron ("el") or only one muon ("mu") with p$_{\text{T}}$ larger than 27 GeV, the number of events with at least four jets with p$_{\text{T}}$ larger than 25 GeV, the number of events with at least three $b$-tagged jets at the 70% efficiency working point, and the number of events with at least two $b$-tagged jets at the 60% efficiency working point and at least another one at the 70%. The quoted yields do not include reweighting.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits as a function of &kappa;_2V (obtained using the signal strength &mu;_VBF as the POI) from the combined ggF and VBF signal regions, as shown by the solid black line. The value of &kappa;_&lambda; is fixed to 1. The blue and yellow bands show respectively the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands around the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The expected exclusion limits are obtained using a fit to the data with the background-only hypothesis. The dark red line shows in the predicted VBF HH cross-section as a function of &kappa;_2V.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limit obtained using the signal strength &mu;_ggF+VBF as the POI in the two-dimensional &kappa;_&lambda; vs. &kappa;_2V space, obtained from the combined ggF and VBF signal model, as shown by the solid black line. The blue and yellow bands show respectively the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands around the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The star denotes the SM prediction (&kappa;_&lambda;=κ_2V=1). The displayed values are in units of $\mu_{ggF}$.

The expected and observed profile likelihood ratio scans for &kappa;_&lambda; coupling modifier, shown by the solid black line, using the coupling modifier as the POIs. The value of &kappa;_2V is fixed to 1. The dashed blue line shows the expected profile likelihood ratio, as obtained using a fit to the data with the background-only hypothesis. The pink line indicates the 2&sigma; exclusion boundary.

The expected and observed profile likelihood ratio scans for the &kappa;_2V coupling modifier, shown by the solid black line, using the coupling modifier as the POIs. The value of &kappa;_&lambda; is fixed to 1. The dashed blue line shows the expected profile likelihood ratio, as obtained using a fit to the data with the background-only hypothesis. The pink line indicates the 2&sigma; exclusion boundary.

The observed profile likelihood ratio exclusion limits for the two-dimensional &kappa;_&lambda; vs. &kappa;_2V modifier space, shown by the solid dark purple line at the 1&sigma; level and the dashed turquoise line at the 2&sigma; level. The black cross denotes the best-fit values of (&kappa;_&lambda;,&kappa;_2V). For both the expected and observed limit plots, the black star indicates the SM prediction (&kappa;_&lambda;=κ_2V=1).

The expected profile likelihood ratio exclusion limits for the two-dimensional &kappa;_&lambda; vs. &kappa;_2V modifier space, where the solid pink line denotes the 1&sigma;-level exclusion and the dashed orange line denotes the 2&sigma;-level exclusion. The black cross denotes the best-fit values of (&kappa;_&lambda;,&kappa;_2V). For both the expected and observed limit plots, the black star indicates the SM prediction (&kappa;_&lambda;=κ_2V=1).

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits on the SMEFT coefficients in the two-dimensional spaces c_{H G} vs. c_H shown by the solid black lines. The displayed values are in units of $\mu_{ggF}$. The dashed black line indicates the expected 95&#37; CL exclusion limits. The shaded blue band indicates the &plusmn; 1&sigma; uncertainty of the exclusion limits, while the yellow band indicates the &plusmn; 2&sigma; uncertainty. The values of the other three coefficients for each plot are fixed to 0. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits on the SMEFT coefficients in the two-dimensional spaces c_tG vs. c_H shown by the solid black lines. The displayed values are in units of $\mu_{ggF}$. The dashed black line indicates the expected 95&#37; CL exclusion limits. The shaded blue band indicates the &plusmn; 1&sigma; uncertainty of the exclusion limits, while the yellow band indicates the &plusmn; 2&sigma; uncertainty. The values of the other three coefficients for each plot are fixed to 0. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits on the SMEFT coefficients in the two-dimensional spaces c_{t H} vs. c_H shown by the solid black lines. The displayed values are in units of $\mu_{ggF}$. The dashed black line indicates the expected 95&#37; CL exclusion limits. The shaded blue band indicates the &plusmn; 1&sigma; uncertainty of the exclusion limits, while the yellow band indicates the &plusmn; 2&sigma; uncertainty. The values of the other three coefficients for each plot are fixed to 0. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits on the SMEFT coefficients in the two-dimensional spaces c_H&#9633; vs. c_H shown by the solid black lines. The displayed values are in units of $\mu_{ggF}$. The dashed black line indicates the expected 95&#37; CL exclusion limits. The shaded blue band indicates the &plusmn; 1&sigma; uncertainty of the exclusion limits, while the yellow band indicates the &plusmn; 2&sigma; uncertainty. The values of the other three coefficients for each plot are fixed to 0. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2016 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2016 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2016 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2016 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2016 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2016 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2017 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2017 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2017 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2017 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2017 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2017 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2018 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2018 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2018 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2018 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2018 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2018 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits as a function of the five relevant SMEFT coefficients: (a) c_H, (b) c_{H G}, (c) c_H&#9633;, (d) c_tH, and (e) c_tG, obtained from the combined ggF signal model, as shown by the solid black line. The values of the other four coefficients are fixed to 0. The blue and yellow bands show the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands respectively on the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The red line shows the predicted ggF HH cross-section as a function of the coefficient. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits as a function of the five relevant SMEFT coefficients: (a) c_H, (b) c_{H G}, (c) c_H&#9633;, (d) c_tH, and (e) c_tG, obtained from the combined ggF signal model, as shown by the solid black line. The values of the other four coefficients are fixed to 0. The blue and yellow bands show the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands respectively on the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The red line shows the predicted ggF HH cross-section as a function of the coefficient. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits as a function of the five relevant SMEFT coefficients: (a) c_H, (b) c_{H G}, (c) c_H&#9633;, (d) c_tH, and (e) c_tG, obtained from the combined ggF signal model, as shown by the solid black line. The values of the other four coefficients are fixed to 0. The blue and yellow bands show the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands respectively on the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The red line shows the predicted ggF HH cross-section as a function of the coefficient. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits as a function of the five relevant SMEFT coefficients: (a) c_H, (b) c_{H G}, (c) c_H&#9633;, (d) c_tH, and (e) c_tG, obtained from the combined ggF signal model, as shown by the solid black line. The values of the other four coefficients are fixed to 0. The blue and yellow bands show the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands respectively on the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The red line shows the predicted ggF HH cross-section as a function of the coefficient. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits as a function of the five relevant SMEFT coefficients: (a) c_H, (b) c_{H G}, (c) c_H&#9633;, (d) c_tH, and (e) c_tG, obtained from the combined ggF signal model, as shown by the solid black line. The values of the other four coefficients are fixed to 0. The blue and yellow bands show the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands respectively on the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The red line shows the predicted ggF HH cross-section as a function of the coefficient. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits as a function of the two relevant HH HEFT coefficients: (a) c_tt&#772;HH and (b) c_ggHH, obtained from the combined ggF signal model, as shown by the solid black line. The values of the other four coefficients are fixed to 0. The blue and yellow bands show the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands respectively on the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The red line shows the predicted ggF HH cross-section as a function of the coefficient. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits as a function of the two relevant HH HEFT coefficients: (a) c_tt&#772;HH and (b) c_ggHH, obtained from the combined ggF signal model, as shown by the solid black line. The values of the other four coefficients are fixed to 0. The blue and yellow bands show the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands respectively on the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The red line shows the predicted ggF HH cross-section as a function of the coefficient. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

Correlation matrix of all the parameters including nuisance parameters used in the profile likelihood unfolding fit on $A_{C}$.

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \Delta R (l,l)$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ N_{jets}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{Jet1}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}/p_{T}^{Jet1}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ m_{jj}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ m_{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ H_{T}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{\gamma} / \sqrt{H_{T}}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \Delta \phi (Jet,\gamma)$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \phi_{CS}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \cos \theta_{CS}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{\gamma} / \sqrt{H_{T}}$ (Fig. 8 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ H_{T}$ (Fig. 8 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \Delta \phi (Jet,\gamma)$ (Fig. 8 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \Delta R (l,l)$ (Fig. 5 (d))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$ (Fig. 5 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma} < 200 GeV$ (Fig. 11 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } 200 GeV < p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma} < 300 GeV$ (Fig. 11 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma} > 300 GeV$ (Fig. 11 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ m_{jj}$ (Fig. 7 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ m_{ll\gamma j}$ (Fig. 7 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ N_{jets}$ (Fig. 6 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{Jet1}$ (Fig. 6 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}$ (Fig. 6 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}/p_{T}^{Jet1}$ (Fig. 6 (d))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll}$ (Fig. 5 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$ (Fig. 8 (d))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll\gamma} < 50 GeV$ (Fig. 12 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j} \textrm{ in bin } 50 GeV < p_{T}^{ll\gamma} < 75 GeV$ (Fig. 12 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll\gamma} > 75 GeV$ (Fig. 12 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } 125 GeV < m_{ll\gamma} < 200 GeV$ (Fig. 10 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } 200 GeV < m_{ll\gamma} < 300 GeV$ (Fig. 10 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } m_{ll\gamma} > 300 GeV$ (Fig. 10 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma}$ (Fig. 5 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \cos \theta_{CS}$ (Fig. 9 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \phi_{CS}$ (Fig. 9 (a))

Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker. Both are evaluated using an independent sample of testing events.

TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker. Both are evaluated using an independent sample of testing events.

The efficiency of the TD jet tagger working point used in the analysis is shown as a function of the lab frame transverse decay length for simulated signals with $\chi$ mass of 400 GeV. The uncertainties shown account for lifetime dependence and statistical uncertainty.

The TD jet tagger score distributions for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. The last bin contains jets with tagger scores greater than 0.996, the threshold used to tag signal jets. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR (black round markers) is shown along with the systematic uncertainty (gray band), quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The measurements in the alternative MRs are displayed as well ($Z$+jets MR as green round markers, $t\bar{t}$ MR as red squared markers, QCD MR as blue triangular markers) along with their respective statistical uncertainty. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.

The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR (black round markers) is shown along with the systematic uncertainty (gray band), quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The measurements in the alternative MRs are displayed as well ($Z$+jets MR as green round markers, $t\bar{t}$ MR as red squared markers, QCD MR as blue triangular markers) along with their respective statistical uncertainty. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.

Distribution of the number of TD tagged jets for the $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeVsimulated signal samples with $c\tau_{\chi} = 0.5$ m (solid red line) and $c\tau_{\chi} = 3.0$ m (dotted green line), estimated background (blue square markers), and data (black round markers). The signal distributions are normalized to the expected cross section limit. The blue shaded region indicates the systematic uncertainty in the background prediction. No background prediction is shown for the bin with zero TD tagged jets as it is the main control region used to predict the background for the other two bins. There are zero observed events in the bin with two or more TD tagged jets.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The distribution of the jet charged hadron energy fraction, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The distribution of the jet neutral hadron energy fraction, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The distribution of the number of track constituents in the jet, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The $\eta$ distribution of TD-tagged jets in a background-enriched control region that comprises events with exactly one TD-tagged jet. Observed data (black round markers) and the corresponding prediction based on control samples in data (empty squared markers), measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR, are compared. The prediction uncertainty (gray band) includes the systematic uncertainty quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The predictions for the shape and the normalization of the $\eta$ distribution are consistent with the data.

Jet time distribution in a sample of b-tagged jets from dilepton $t \bar{t}$ events in 2017 data-taking period (black round markers) and simulation (filled histogram). A Gaussian smearing procedure is applied to the jet time in the $t \bar{t}$ sample (green line) to correct for effects that are difficult to simulate (timing drift caused by crystals transparency loss due to detector aging, electronics jitter).

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 1$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.75$, $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 0.25$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.25$, $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 0.75$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 1$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 127 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 127 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 150 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 150 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 175 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 175 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 200 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 200 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 250 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 250 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 300 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 300 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 400 GeV.

Expected 2-D likelihood scan of the signal strength $\mu_{\tau\tau}$ versus the $CP$-mixing angle $\phi_{\tau}$.

Free-floating parameters in the measurement.