Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lead.\,lep.}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sub-lead.\,lep.}}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sub-lead.\,lep.}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sub-lead.\,lep.}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $|y_{e\mu}|$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $m_{e\mu}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $m_{e\mu}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $m_{e\mu}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $|\Delta\phi_{e\mu}|$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|\Delta\phi_{e\mu}|$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|\Delta\phi_{e\mu}|$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $\cos(\theta^{*})$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $\cos(\theta^{*})$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $\cos(\theta^{*})$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lep}+\mathrm{MET}}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lep}+\mathrm{MET}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{lep}+\mathrm{MET}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $m_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $m_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $m_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of the number of jets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable Number of jets ($p_{\mathrm{T}} > $ 30 GeV).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable Number of jets ($p_{\mathrm{T}} > $ 30 GeV).

Fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $S_{\mathrm{T}}$. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The results are compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1, with the NNLO + PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO + Pythia8 and Geneva + Pythia8, as well as Sherpa2.2.12 NLO + PS predictions. The last three predictions are combined with Sherpa 2.2.2 for the $gg$ initial state and Sherpa 2.2.12 for electroweak $WWjj$ production. These contributions are modelled at LO but a NLO QCD $k$-factor of 1.7 is applied for gluon induced production. Theoretical predictions are indicated as markers with vertical lines denoting PDF, scale and parton shower uncertainties. Markers are staggered for better visibility.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $S_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $S_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ in the region with 85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ (85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ (85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $|y_{e\mu}|$ in the region with 85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ (85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ (85 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 150).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ in the region with 150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ (150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ (150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $|y_{e\mu}|$ in the region with 150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ (150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ (150 $<m_{e\mu}<$ 250).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ in the region with $m_{e\mu}>$ 250, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The right-hand-side axis indicates the integrated cross-section of the rightmost bin. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ ($m_{e\mu}>$ 250).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $p_{\mathrm{T},e\mu}$ ($m_{e\mu}>$ 250).

Fiducial differential cross-sections for $|y_{e\mu}|$ in the region with $m_{e\mu}>$ 250, for the nNNLO MATRIX prediction and various four flavour PDF sets. The measured cross-section values are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and solid bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The measurement is compared to fixed-order nNNLO QCD + NLO EW predictions of Matrix 2.1 using four different four-flavour NNLO PDF sets: NNPDF3.0, NNPDF3.1, CT18, and MSHT20.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ ($m_{e\mu}>$ 250).

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$ ($m_{e\mu}>$ 250).

Measured value of the charge asymmetry, $A_{C}$.

Charge asymmetry $A_C$ measured as a function of the absolute difference of the absolute lepton rapidities $||\eta_{l+}|-|\eta_{l-}||$. The measured values are shown as points, whose error bars represent the statistical uncertainty, while the solid bands indicate the size of the total uncertainty. In the bottom panel, the central value of the charge asymmetry divided by the total uncertainty of the $A_C$ measurement is shown. The measurement is compared with the NNLO+PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO+Pythia8 with vertical lines denoting PDF uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $A_{C}$ vs. $||\eta_{l+}|-|\eta_{l-}||$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $A_{C}$ vs. $||\eta_{l+}|-|\eta_{l-}||$.

Charge asymmetry $A_C$ measured as a function of the invariant mass of the dilepton system $m_{e\mu}$. The measured values are shown as points, whose error bars represent the statistical uncertainty, while the solid bands indicate the size of the total uncertainty. In the bottom panel, the central value of the charge asymmetry divided by the total uncertainty of the $A_C$ measurement is shown. The measurement is compared with the NNLO+PS predictions from Powheg MiNNLO+Pythia8 with vertical lines denoting PDF uncertainties.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $A_{C}$ vs. $m_{e\mu}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $A_{C}$ vs. $m_{e\mu}$.

Measured value of the asymmetry in the CP-odd observable $O_{z}$, $A_{CP}$.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, 0 forward jet, $t\leq 0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, 0 forward jet, $t>0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, $\geq 1$ forward jet, $t\leq 0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, $\geq 1$ forward jet, $t>0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, $t\leq 0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, $t>0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, different flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, same flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the 1 b jet, different flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the 1 b jet, same flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The model-independent 95\% CL limits on production cross section for new physics processes for the scalar interaction. The expected limit is shown by the black dashed line with the 68 and 95\% CL uncertainty bands in green and yellow, respectively, while the observed limit is shown by the solid black line. Theoretical LO cross section values for the DM model and their associated uncertainties are also presented (grey line).

The model-independent 95\% CL limits on production cross section for new physics processes for the pseudoscalar interaction. The expected limit is shown by the black dashed line with the 68 and 95\% CL uncertainty bands in green and yellow, respectively, while the observed limit is shown by the solid black line. Theoretical LO cross section values for the DM model and their associated uncertainties are also presented (grey line).

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the QCD control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the tt(1l) control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the W+jets control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the Z(2l) control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the W+jets control region in the single lepton channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the tt(2l) control region in the single lepton channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $(N_{\text{jet}},N_{\text{bjet}})$ distribution of the ttZ control region in the dileptonic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN distribution of the Drell-Yan control region in the dileptonic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking periods, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM scalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM scalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM t-channel scalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel scalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM t-channel pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel scalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

The 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Z' \rightarrow \chi \chi$) times branching ratio B in fb with all statistical and systematic uncertainties, for the $R_{\text{inv}}=$0.6 signal points.

Data yield in the PFN signal region.

Yield of data in the ANTELOPE signal region in the binning used for BumpHunter fitting.

Example description

Differential fiducial cross sections for the number of jets

Example description

Differential fiducial cross sections for the leading jet pT

Example description

Signal-selection efficiency as a function of the di-tau invariant mass squared $q^2$ for simulated events in the SR. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainty.

Data from Figure 2, panel d, upper panel, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 2, panel d, lower panel, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 5-10% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 20-30% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 40-50% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 5-10% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 20-30% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 40-50% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Figure 5, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 5, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel c, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel d, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 7, Zero Crossing Point of $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 7, $\left\langle [p_{T}]\right\rangle$ for $p_{T}$ range of 0.5-10 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 8, panel a, Closure of Sum Rule 1 for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 8, panel b, Closure of Sum Rule 2 for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 9, panel a, $v_{0}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 9, panel b, $v_{0} / v^{5\%}_{0}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 10, panel a, $v_{0}\sqrt{N_{ch}}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 10, panel b, $v_{0}\sqrt{N_{ch}}$ vs Centrality for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 5-10% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 20-30% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 40-50% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 60-70% Centrality

VLL &quot;4321&quot; cross-sections at NLO order of accuracy obtained by MadGraph.

SUSY RPV LQD higgsino cross-sections at NLO + NLL order of accuracy obtained by Resummino.

SUSY RPV LQD wino cross-sections at NLO + NLL order of accuracy obtained by Resummino.

Cutflow of the selection requirements for VLL signals with m_VLL =600, 900, and 1200 GeV. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 126 fb^-1 (140 fb^-1) for the BJET (MST and MSDT) signal regions. The first row refers to unweighted event yields, while the yields presented in other rows are computed after applying event weights according to the selected object reconstruction and identification efficiency scale factors. Dashes (–&ndash;) refer to requirements that are not applicable.

The expected acceptance times efficiency (including object identification and reconstruction, trigger selection, and event selection) for VLL signal as a function of m_VLL for the combined signal regions as well as for three individual signal region categories: 1&tau;_had &ge;3b MST, 1&tau;_had &ge;3b BJET and &ge;2&tau;_had &ge;3b MSDT. The region 1&tau;_had &ge;3b MST refers to the combination of 1&tau;_had 3b MST and 1&tau;_had &ge;4b MST signal regions, while the region 1&tau;_had &ge;3b BJET refers to the combination of 1&tau;_had 3b BJET and 1&tau;_had &ge;4b BJET signal regions.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for mϕ≠ 125 GeV. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on (σ/σggH)×B for all Higgs boson portal mediator samples where the cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb [97]. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for mϕ≠ 125 GeV benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for mϕ≠ 125 GeV benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for baryogenesis samples for the one-DV analysis. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for baryogenesis samples for the one-DV analysis. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for baryogenesis samples for the one-DV analysis. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Summary of the limits for the Z+ALP model. Comparison between observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the Z+ALP production cross-section σ×Ba →gg for ma = 40 GeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on σ×Ba →gg for all considered ALP mass points.

Comparison between the observed and expected 95% CL limits on (σ/σZH) ×BH →ss for Higgs boson portal mediator and ms=35 GeV for Z-associated H production with one DV.

Observed 95% CL limits on (σ/σZH) ×BH →ss for all Higgs boson portal mediator samples where the cross-section is normalized to the Z(arrow ℓℓ)-associated Higgs boson production cross-section, σZH = 0.089 pb .

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×Bϕ →ss for mϕ≠125 GeV. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×Bϕ →ss for mϕ≠125 GeV. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the σ×BZd →ff production cross-section for dark photon Zd benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the σ×BZd →ff production cross-section for dark photon Zd benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the one-DV search. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the one-DV search. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the one-DV search. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 60 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 60 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 200 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark sample for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 400 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark sample for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 60 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 60 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 200 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark sample for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 400 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark sample for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →νbb̄ channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →νbb̄ channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →νbb̄ channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →cbs channel) for one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →cbs channel) for one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →cbs channel) for one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →ντ+ τ- channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →ντ+ τ- channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →ντ+ τ- channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for the Z+ALP benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for the Z+ALP benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for the Z+ALP benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency maps as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.22 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.22 m.

One-DV vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.22 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.22 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.66 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.66 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.66 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.66 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.13 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.13 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.13 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.13 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.58 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.58 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.58 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.58 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=1.31 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=1.31 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=1.31 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=1.31 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.63 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.63 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.63 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.63 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.05 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.05 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.05 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.05 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=5.32 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=5.32 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=5.32 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=5.32 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.61 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.61 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.61 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.61 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.59 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.59 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.59 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.59 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.84 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.84 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.84 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.84 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.31 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.31 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.31 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.31 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.29 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.29 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.29 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.29 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.40 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.40 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.40 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.40 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.33 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.33 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.33 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.33 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=6.04 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=6.04 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=6.04 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=6.04 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency maps as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency maps as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency maps as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency maps as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region for mALP=0.1 GeV and cτsim=0.003 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region for mALP=0.1 GeV and cτsim=0.003 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region for mALP=0.1 GeV and cτsim=0.003 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region for mALP=0.1 GeV and cτsim=0.003 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=1 GeV and cτsim=0.031 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=1 GeV and cτsim=0.031 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=1 GeV and cτsim=0.031 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=1 GeV and cτsim=0.031 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=10 GeV and cτsim=0.31 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=10 GeV and cτsim=0.31 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=10 GeV and cτsim=0.31 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=10 GeV and cτsim=0.31 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=40 GeV and cτsim=0.48 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=40 GeV and cτsim=0.48 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=40 GeV and cτsim=0.48 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=40 GeV and cτsim=0.48 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=5 GeV, cτsim=0.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=5 GeV, cτsim=0.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=5 GeV, cτsim=0.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=5 GeV, cτsim=0.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=3.0 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=3.0 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=3.0 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=3.0 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=50 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=50 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=50 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=50 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=3.4 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=3.4 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=3.4 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=3.4 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudial decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=200 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=200 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=200 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=200 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=400 GeV, cτsim=4.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=400 GeV, cτsim=4.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=400 GeV, cτsim=4.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=400 GeV, cτsim=4.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.12 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.12 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.12 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.12 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=15 GeV, cτsim=0.25 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=15 GeV, cτsim=0.25 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=15 GeV, cτsim=0.25 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=15 GeV, cτsim=0.25 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.1 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.1 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.1 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.1 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=0.75 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=0.75 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=0.75 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=0.75 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.0 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.0 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.0 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.0 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=80 GeV, cτsim=2.0 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=80 GeV, cτsim=2.0 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=80 GeV, cτsim=2.0 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=80 GeV, cτsim=2.0 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=175 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=175 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=175 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=175 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.4 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.4 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.4 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.4 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=4.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=4.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=4.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=4.5 m.