Impact of different components of systematic uncertainty on the measured fiducial cross section, without taking into account correlations. The impact of one source of systematic uncertainty is computed by first performing the fit with the corresponding nuisance parameter fixed to one standard deviation up or down from the value obtained in the nominal fit, then these up and down variations are symmetrized. The impacts of several sources of systematic uncertainty are added in quadrature for each component. The categorization of sources of systematic uncertainties into experimental and theory modeling correspond to those used for the measured fiducial cross section.

Efficiency correction factor $C_{WW}$, defined as the ratio of the number of reconstructed $W^{\pm}W^{\pm}jj$ electroweak events in the signal region over the number of events generated in the fiducial phase space, in bins of the dijet invariant mass, $m_{jj}$. The numbers are shown with their statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The $C_{WW}$ factors have been calculated with Sherpa v2.2.2. The last bin includes the overflow.

Efficiency correction factor $C_{WW}$, defined as the ratio of the number of reconstructed $W^{\pm}W^{\pm}jj$ electroweak events in the signal region over the number of events generated in the fiducial phase space, in bins of the dilepton invariant mass, $m_{ll}$. The numbers are shown with their statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The $C_{WW}$ factors have been calculated with Sherpa v2.2.2. The last bin includes the overflow.

The expected upper limits on the production cross-section times the product of branching ratios for the benchmark signal scenario involving a scalar particle $X$ with narrow width decaying via $X\rightarrow aa\rightarrow 4\gamma$, $\sigma_X\times B(X\rightarrow aa)\times B(a\rightarrow\gamma\gamma)^2$. The limits for $m_{a}$ = 5 GeV and 10 GeV do not cover as large a range as the other mass points, since the region of interest is limited to $ m_{a} < 0.01 \times m_{X}$. Additionally, the expected limits are not provided for a small number of points, indicated with a hyphen, because of a technical failure with the computation.

The observed upper limits on the production cross-section times the product of branching ratios for the benchmark signal scenario involving a scalar particle $X$ with narrow width decaying via $X\rightarrow aa\rightarrow 6\pi^0$, $\sigma_X\times B(X\rightarrow aa)\times B(a\rightarrow 3\pi^0)^2$. The limits for $m_{a}$ = 5 GeV and 10 GeV do not cover as large a range as the other mass points, since the region of interest is limited to $ m_{a} < 0.01 \times m_{X}$.

The expected upper limits on the production cross-section times the product of branching ratios for the benchmark signal scenario involving a scalar particle $X$ with narrow width decaying via $X\rightarrow aa\rightarrow 6\pi^0$, $\sigma_X\times B(X\rightarrow aa)\times B(a\rightarrow 3\pi^0)^2$. The limits for $m_{a}$ = 5 GeV and 10 GeV do not cover as large a range as the other mass points, since the region of interest is limited to $ m_{a} < 0.01 \times m_{X}$. Additionally, the expected limits are not provided for a small number of points, indicated with a hyphen, because of a technical failure with the computation.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the visible cross section as a function of $m_X$ and the fraction of events in the low-$\Delta E$ category.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.1 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.5 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.7 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 1 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 2 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 5 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 10 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.5 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.7 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 1 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 2 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 5 GeV.

Selection efficiency for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 10 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.1 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.5 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.7 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 1 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 2 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 5 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 2\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 10 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.5 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 0.7 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 1 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 2 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 5 GeV.

Fraction of reconstructed photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for reconstructed photons originating from the decay $a\rightarrow 3\pi^0\rightarrow 6\gamma$ with $m_a$ = 10 GeV.

Selection efficiency for photons originating from the BSM process $X\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, where the $X$ particle is a high-mass narrow-width scalar particle originating from the gluon--gluon fusion process.

Fraction of photons with a value of shower shape variable $\Delta E$ lower than the threshold, for photons originating from the BSM process $X\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, where the $X$ particle is a high-mass narrow-width scalar particle originating from the gluon--gluon fusion process.

Number of data events for the 2-tag category with the loose selection in bins of diphoton mass.

Number of data events for the 1-tag category with the tight selection in bins of diphoton mass.

Number of data events for the 2-tag category with the tight selection in bins of diphoton mass.

Number of data events for the 1-tag category with the loose selection in bins of four-body mass.

Number of data events for the 2-tag category with the loose selection in bins of four-body mass.

Number of data events for the 1-tag category with the tight selection in bins of four-body mass.

Number of data events for the 2-tag category with the tight selection in bins of four-body mass.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross-section of gluon-fusion initiated Higgs boson pair production as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross-section of gluon-fusion initiated resonant production of a Higgs boson pair as a function of the mass of the resonance, $m_X$.

Comparison of the distribution of the scalar sum of small-$R$ jet and lepton transverse momenta, $S_T$, between data and the background prediction in the signal region of the pair-production (PP) $\geq 3\ell$ channel. The background prediction is shown post-fit, i.e. after the fit to the data $S_T$ distributions under the background-only hypothesis. The last bin contains the overflow. An example distribution for a $B\bar B$ signal in the singlet model with $m_B$ = 900 GeV is overlaid.

Comparison of the distribution of the invariant mass of the $Z$ boson candidate and the highest-$p_T$ top-tagged large-$R$ jet, $m_{Zt}$, between data and the background prediction in the signal region of the single-production (SP) 2$\ell$ channel. The background prediction is shown post-fit, i.e. after the fit to the data $m_{Zt}$ distributions under the background-only hypothesis. The last bin contains the overflow. An example distribution for a single-$T$-quark signal with $m_T$ = 900 GeV and $\kappa_T = 0.5$ is overlaid.

Comparison of the distribution of the scalar sum of small-$R$ jet and lepton transverse momenta, $S_T$, between data and the background prediction in the signal region of the single-production (SP) $\geq 3\ell$ channel. The background prediction is shown post-fit, i.e. after the fit to the data $S_T$ distributions under the background-only hypothesis. The last bin contains the overflow. An example distribution for a single-$T$-quark signal with $m_T$ = 900 GeV and $\kappa_T$ = 0.5 is overlaid.

Upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production (PP) for $T\bar T$ in the singlet model. The expected limits are shown for the combination of the channels, as are the observed limits.

Upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production (PP) for $B\bar B$ in the singlet model. The expected limits are shown for the combination of the channels, as are the observed limits.

Upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production (PP) for $T\bar T$ in the doublet model. The expected limits are shown for the combination of the channels, as are the observed limits.

Upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production (PP) for $B\bar B$ in the doublet model. The expected limits are shown for the combination of the channels, as are the observed limits.

Upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production (PP) for $T\bar T$ with a BR of 100$\%$ to $Zt$. The expected limits are shown for the combination of the channels, as are the observed limits.

Upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production (PP) for $B\bar B$ with a BR of 100$\%$ to $Zb$. The expected limits are shown for the combination of the channels, as are the observed limits.

Expected 95$\%$ CL lower limits from the combination of the pair-production channels on the mass of vector-like quarks for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$, adding up to unity.

Observed 95$\%$ CL lower limits from the combination of the pair-production channels on the mass of vector-like quarks for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$, adding up to unity.

Expected 95$\%$ CL lower limits from the combination of the pair-production channels on the mass of vector-like quarks for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$, adding up to unity.

Observed 95$\%$ CL lower limits from the combination of the pair-production channels on the mass of vector-like quarks for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$, adding up to unity.

Upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on the cross section times BR to $Zt$ of single production (SP) of a $T$-quark. The expected limits are shown for the combination of the channels, as are the observed limits. The expected cross section times BR to $Zt$ for single-$T$-quark production is also shown for a coupling $\kappa_T = 0.5$, which corresponds to a coupling of $c_W = \sqrt{c^2_{W,L} + c^2_{W,R}} = 0.45$ from Ref. [14]. The BR assumed here corresponds to the singlet benchmark model, i.e. $\approx 25\%$.

Expected and observed 95$\%$ CL limits from the combination of the single-production channels on the coupling of the $T$ quark to SM particles, $c_W = \sqrt c^2_L + c^2_R$, assuming the singlet-model BR of $\approx 25\%$, as a function of the mass of the $T$ quark, $m_T$. Values of $c_W$ larger than the observed limit are excluded.

Expected and observed 95$\%$ CL limits from the combination of the single-production channels on the mixing angle in the singlet model between the $T$ quark and the top quark, $|\sin\theta_L|$, as a function of the mass of the $T$ quark, $m_T$. Values of $|\sin\theta_L|$ enclosed by the observed limit are excluded, i.e. for $m_T$ larger than $\approx 1200$ GeV, no value of $|\sin\theta_L|$ is excluded.

Expected lower limit from the combination of the single-production channels on the mass of the $T$ quark as a function of the couplings of the $T$ quark to the $W$ boson, $\sqrt c^2_L + c^2_R$, and to the $Z$ boson, $\sqrt c^2_L + c^2_R$ with the assumption of equal BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$ and $T\rightarrow Ht$ in the limit of large $T$-quark masses.

Observed lower limit from the combination of the single-production channels on the mass of the $T$ quark as a function of the couplings of the $T$ quark to the $W$ boson, $\sqrt c^2_L + c^2_R$, and to the $Z$ boson, $\sqrt c^2_L + c^2_R$ with the assumption of equal BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$ and $T\rightarrow Ht$ in the limit of large $T$-quark masses.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 500 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 600 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 700 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 750 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 800 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 850 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 900 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 950 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 1000 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 1050 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 1100 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 1150 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 1200 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 1300 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 1400 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 500 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 600 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 700 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 750 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 800 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 850 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 900 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 950 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 1000 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 1050 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 1100 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 1150 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 1200 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 1300 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 1400 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on the cross section times BR to $Zt$ as a function of the vector-like $T$-quark mass and coupling $\kappa_T$ for the combination of the SP $2\ell$ and SP $\geq 3\ell$ channels.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the singlet model in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 0-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the singlet model in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 1-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the doublet model in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 0-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the doublet model in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 1-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the case of 100$\%$ BR for $B \rightarrow Zb$ in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 0-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the case of 100$\%$ BR for $B \rightarrow Zb$ in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 1-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the singlet model in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 0-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the singlet model in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 1-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the doublet model in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 0-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the doublet model in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 1-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the case of 100$\%$ BR for $T \rightarrow Zt$ in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 0-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the case of 100$\%$ BR for $T \rightarrow Zt$ in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 1-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the singlet model in the PP $2\ell$ $\geq 2$J channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the singlet model in the PP $2\ell$ $\geq 2$J channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the doublet model in the PP $2\ell$ $\geq 2$J channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the doublet model in the PP $2\ell$ $\geq 2$J channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the case of 100$\%$ BR for $T \rightarrow Zt$ in the PP $2\ell$ $\geq 2$J channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the case of 100$\%$ BR for $B \rightarrow Zb$ in the PP $2\ell$ $\geq 2$J channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the singlet model in the PP $\geq 3\ell$ channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the singlet model in the PP $\geq 3\ell$ channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the doublet model in the PP $\geq 3\ell$ channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the doublet model in the PP $\geq 3\ell$ channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the case of 100$\%$ BR for $T \rightarrow Zt$ in the PP $\geq 3\ell$ channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the case of 100$\%$ BR for $B \rightarrow Zb$ in the PP $\geq 3\ell$ channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for single-$T$-quark production with $\kappa_T = 0.5$ in the SP $2\ell$ channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for single-$T$-quark production with $\kappa_T = 0.5$ in the SP $\geq 3\ell$ channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies in $\%$ in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 0-large-$R$ jet SR. Uncertainties are statistical only.

Signal efficiencies in $\%$ in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 1-large-$R$ jet SR. Uncertainties are statistical only.

Signal efficiencies in $\%$ in the PP $2\ell$ $\geq 2$J channel. Uncertainties are statistical only.

Signal efficiencies in $\%$ in the PP $\geq 3\ell$ channel. Uncertainties are statistical only.

Signal efficiencies in $\%$ in the SP $2\ell$ channel for $\kappa_T = 0.5$. Uncertainties are statistical only.

Signal efficiencies in $\%$ in the SP $\geq 3\ell$ channel for $\kappa_T = 0.5$. Uncertainties are statistical only.

Measured differential cross sections for the $pp \rightarrow \nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ process as a function of $p_{T}^{\nu\bar{\nu}}$ in the inclusive $N_{jets} \geq 0$ extended fiducial region defined in the paper.

Measured differential cross sections for the $pp \rightarrow \nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ process as a function of $p_{T}^{\nu\bar{\nu}}$ in the exclusive $N_{jets} = 0$ extended fiducial region defined in the paper.

Measured differential cross sections as a function of $N_{jets}$ in the extended fiducial region defined in the paper.

Observed and expected one dimensional 95% C.L. limits on vertex function parameters for the $ZZ\gamma$ and $Z\gamma\gamma$ vertices.

Observed and expected one dimensional 95% C.L. limits on EFT parameters for the $ZZ\gamma$ and $Z\gamma\gamma$ vertices.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of gluon-fusion initialted resonant production of the mass of the resonance times the branch ratio of X to HH and the BR of HH to gammagamma WW, without assuming the BR of H to gammagamma and H to WW.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Measured and expected differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ in bin of 50$< p_{T}^{4l} <$100 GeV

Measured and expected differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ in bin of 100$< p_{T}^{4l} <$600 GeV

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ in bin of 0.0$< y_{4l} <$0.4

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ in bin of 0.4$< y_{4l} <$0.8

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ in bin of 0.8$< y_{4l} <$1.2

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ in bin of 1.2$< y_{4l} <$2.5

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ for MELA$<$1.4 bin

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ for MELA$>$1.4 bin

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ for $\mu\mu\mu\mu$ events

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ for $eeee$ events

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ for $ee\mu\mu$ events

Systematic covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$ distribution.

Statistical covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$ distribution.

Background covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$ distribution.

Systematic covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-$p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution.<br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to the 0$< p_{T}^{4l} < $20 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 2.<br> Bins labelled 10-16 correspond to the 20$< p_{T}^{4l} <$50 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 3.<br> Bins labelled 17-23 correspond to the 50$< p_{T}^{4l} <$100 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 4.<br> Bins labelled 24-30 correspond to the 100$< p_{T}^{4l} <$600 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 5.

Statistical covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-$p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to the 0$< p_{T}^{4l} < $20 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 2.<br> Bins labelled 10-16 correspond to the 20$< p_{T}^{4l} <$50 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 3.<br> Bins labelled 17-23 correspond to the 50$< p_{T}^{4l} <$100 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 4.<br> Bins labelled 24-30 correspond to the 100$< p_{T}^{4l} <$600 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 5.

Background covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-$p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to the 0$< p_{T}^{4l} < $20 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 2.<br> Bins labelled 10-16 correspond to the 20$< p_{T}^{4l} <$50 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 3.<br> Bins labelled 17-23 correspond to the 50$< p_{T}^{4l} <$100 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 4.<br> Bins labelled 24-30 correspond to the 100$< p_{T}^{4l} <$600 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 5.

Systematic covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-$y_{4l}$ distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to the 0.0$< y_{4l} < $0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 6.<br> Bins labelled 10-18 correspond to the 0.4$< y_{4l} <$0.8 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 7.<br> Bins labelled 19-26 correspond to the 0.8$< y_{4l} <$1.2 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 8.<br> Bins labelled 27-34 correspond to the 1.2$< y_{4l} <$2.5 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 9.

Statistical covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-$y_{4l}$ distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to the 0.0$< y_{4l} < $0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 6.<br> Bins labelled 10-18 correspond to the 0.4$< y_{4l} <$0.8 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 7.<br> Bins labelled 19-26 correspond to the 0.8$< y_{4l} <$1.2 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 8.<br> Bins labelled 27-34 correspond to the 1.2$< y_{4l} <$2.5 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 9.

Background covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-$y_{4l}$ distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to the 0.0$< y_{4l} < $0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 6.<br> Bins labelled 10-18 correspond to the 0.4$< y_{4l} <$0.8 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 7.<br> Bins labelled 19-26 correspond to the 0.8$< y_{4l} <$1.2 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 8.<br> Bins labelled 27-34 correspond to the 1.2$< y_{4l} <$2.5 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 9.

Systematic covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-MELA distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-7 correspond to the MELA$<$ 0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 10.<br> Bins labelled 8-12 correspond to the MELA$>$ 0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 11.

Statistical covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-MELA distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-7 correspond to the MELA$<$ 0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 10.<br> Bins labelled 8-12 correspond to the MELA$>$ 0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 11.

Background covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-MELA distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-7 correspond to the MELA$<$ 0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 10.<br> Bins labelled 8-12 correspond to the MELA$>$ 0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 11.

Systematic covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-lepton flavour distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to $\mu\mu\mu\mu$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 12.<br> Bins labelled 10-18 correspond to $eeee$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 13.<br> Bins labelled 19-27 correspond to $\mu\mu\mu\mu$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 14.<br>

Statistical covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-lepton flavour distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to $\mu\mu\mu\mu$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 12.<br> Bins labelled 10-18 correspond to $eeee$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 13.<br> Bins labelled 19-27 correspond to $\mu\mu\mu\mu$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 14.<br>

Background covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-lepton flavour distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to $\mu\mu\mu\mu$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 12.<br> Bins labelled 10-18 correspond to $eeee$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 13.<br> Bins labelled 19-27 correspond to $\mu\mu\mu\mu$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 14.<br>

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ medium-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ high-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ multibin SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ GMSB SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Best performing fit setups entering the final combination as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass. 'S' marks the simultaneous fit of the four simplified model single-bin SRs, 'M' denotes the simultaneous fit of the two $1\tau$ SRs and the $2\tau$ multibin SR.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of tanBeta and SUSY breaking mass scale Lambda.

Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Yields of the expected background from the SM in the bins of the multibin SR of the $2\tau$ channel with all bins being simultaneously used to constrain the background prediction. Expectation is given with the scalings computed in the combined fit applied. Uncertainties are statistial plus systematrics. Only the subsamples contributing the respective region are considered.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the compressed $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the medium-mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the medium-mass $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the top VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the $W$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the $Z$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ > 80 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ in the compressed SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ > 1600 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the high-mass SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1100 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

mT(tau_1) + mT(tau_2) in the multibin SR of the 2T channel. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the GMSB SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1900 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.