Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hu}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hu}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $c_{Hu}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $c_{Hu}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hd}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hd}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hd}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hd}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Results for the $P_3$ angular observable. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

Results for the $P_4^\prime$ angular observable. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

Results for the $P_5^\prime$ angular observable. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

Results for the $P_6^\prime$ angular observable. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

Results for the $P_8^\prime$ angular observable. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

Results for the CP averaged observables $F_L$ and $P_1$–$P_8^\prime$. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

Correlation matrix of angular observables Fl and P1–P8', considering only the statistical uncertainties from the maximum-likelihood fit in the interval 1.1 < $q^2$ < 2 GeV$^2$

Correlation matrix of angular observables Fl and P1–P8', considering only the statistical uncertainties from the maximum-likelihood fit in the interval 2 < $q^2$ < 4.3 GeV$^2$

Correlation matrix of angular observables Fl and P1–P8', considering only the statistical uncertainties from the maximum-likelihood fit in the interval 4.3 < $q^2$ < 6 GeV$^2$

Correlation matrix of angular observables Fl and P1–P8', considering only the statistical uncertainties from the maximum-likelihood fit in the interval 6 < $q^2$ < 8.68 GeV$^2$

Correlation matrix of angular observables Fl and P1–P8', considering only the statistical uncertainties from the maximum-likelihood fit in the interval 10.09 < $q^2$ < 12.86 GeV$^2$

Correlation matrix of angular observables Fl and P1–P8', considering only the statistical uncertainties from the maximum-likelihood fit in the interval 14.18 < $q^2$ < 16 GeV$^2$

Distributions in $S_T$ in the SR for the electron channel, after a background-only fit to the data. The signal distributions are scaled to the cross section predicted by the theory. The hatched bands show the post-fit uncertainty band, combining all sources of uncertainty. The ratio of data to the background predictions is shown in the panels below the distributions.

Data selection efficiency as a function of nuclear recoil energy

Data points used in analysis in log_10(S2)-S1 space

The $G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}}$ distribution in the PASS region for events passing the event selection and with $55 < p_{\mathrm{T}} < 200$ GeV.

The $G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}}$ distribution in the FAIL region for events passing the event selection and with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 200$ GeV.

The $G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}}$ distribution in the PASS region for events passing the event selection and with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 200$ GeV.

Mass spectrum predicted in the signal region defined by $G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}} > 0.22$ and $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 70$ GeV.

Cross section limits for gluino and supersymmetric top R-hadrons for both background prediction methods.

Cross section limits for supersymmetric tau models for both background prediction methods.

Cross section limits for DY-produced tau prime models (single and multicharged) for both background prediction methods.

Cross section limits for Z prime to multicharged tau prime model for both background prediction methods. All Z prime models assume a narrow width, and a 100% branching fraction to 600 GeV tau primes.

2D exclusion showing the observed cross section limit as a function of the multicharged tau prime mass and Z prime mass for the ionization method.

2D exclusion showing the observed cross section limit as a function of the multicharged tau prime mass and Z prime mass for the mass method.

Cumulative selection efficiency for the data and for two signal hypotheses.

Expected and observed mass limits obtained using 2017-2018 data for various HSCP candidate models,for the two background estimate methods.

Mass windows used in the mass method as a function of the signal target mass for the signal samples assuming a charge of $1e$ and $2e$, as appropriate to the signal model.

Mass spectrum predicted in the validation region defined by $0.018 < G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}} < 0.057$ and $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 70$ GeV. The thresholds used in the $G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}}$ requirement represent the 50% and 90% quantile of the distribution.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.3$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.3<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.6$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.6<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.9$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.9<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<1.2$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $1.2<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<2.1$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $2.1<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<2.4$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.3$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.3<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.6$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.6<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.9$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.9<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<1.2$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $1.2<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<2.1$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $2.1<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<2.4$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency as a function of $\beta$, for the $\tilde{g}$ signals.

Trigger efficiency as a function of $\beta$, for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{g}$ R-hadrons obtained with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{g}$ R-hadrons obtained with the mass method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{t}$ R-hadrons obtained with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{t}$ R-hadrons obtained with the mass method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{\tau}$ obtained with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{\tau}$ obtained with the mass method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{\tau}$ production within the GMSB SPS7 modelobtained with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{\tau}$ production within the GMSB SPS7 model obtained with the mass method.

Cross section limits for DY-produced $\tau'$ with $abs(Q) = 1e$ with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for DY-produced $\tau'$ with $abs(Q) = 1e$ with the mass method.

Cross section limits for DY-produced $\tau'$ with $abs(Q) = 2e$ with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for DY-produced $\tau'$ with $abs(Q) = 2e$ with the mass method.

Cross section limits for the production of $Z'$ boson decaying into a pair of $\tau'$ fermions of charge $2e$ (with a branching fraction equal to 1 and a fixed $\tau'$ mass of 600 GeV), obtained with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for the production of $Z'$ boson decaying into a pair of $\tau'$ fermions of charge $2e$ (with a branching fraction equal to 1 and a fixed $\tau'$ mass of 600 GeV), obtained with the mass method.

Two-dimensional exclusion showing the observed cross section limit as a function of the masses of the $\tau'$ (on the $x$ axis) and of the $Z'$ boson (on the $y$ axis), for the ionization method.

Two-dimensional exclusion showing the observed cross section limit as a function of the masses of the $\tau'$ (on the $x$ axis) and of the $Z'$ boson (on the $y$ axis), for the mass method.

Expected background yield, expected signal yield, and observed data for the mass method for 2017.

Expected background yield, expected signal yield, and observed data for the mass method for 2018.

Selection efficieny for GMSB supersymmetric $\tau$.

Selection efficiency for gluino R-hardon samples.

Selection efficiency for supersymmetric top R-hadrons.

Selection efficiency for pair-produced supersymmetric $\tau$.

Selection efficiency for $\tau'$ with $|Q| = 1e$.

Selection efficiecny for $\tau'$ with $|Q| = 2e$.

Selection efficiency for $Z'$ (mass = 3 TeV) going to $\tau'$ with $|Q| = 2e$.

Selection efficiency for $Z'$ (mass 5 TeV) goes to $\tau'$ with $|Q| = 2e$.

Selection efficiency for $Z'$ going to $\tau'$ (mass 600 GeV) with $|Q| = 2e$.

Selection efficiency for $Z'$ going to $\tau'$ (mass 1 TeV) with charge $|Q| = 2e$.

Covariance for full matrix measurement all bins from $m(t\bar{t})$ fit

Results for full matrix measurement inclusive from $p_{T}(t)$

Covariance for full matrix measurement inclusive from $p_{T}(t)$

Results for full matrix measurement all bins from $p_{T}(t)$ fit

Covariance for full matrix measurement all bins from $p_{T}(t)$ fit

Results for full matrix measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$

Covariance for full matrix measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$

Results for full matrix measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$ for $|cos(\theta)| < 0.4$

Covariance for full matrix measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$ for $|cos(\theta)| < 0.4$

Results for full matrix measurement differential in $p_{T}(t)$

Covariance for full matrix measurement differential in $p_{T}(t)$

Results for $D$ measurement inclusive from $m(t\bar{t})$

Covariance for $D$ measurement inclusive from $m(t\bar{t})$

Results for $D$ measurement inclusive from $p_{T}(t)$

Covariance for $D$ measurement inclusive from $p_{T}(t)$

Results for $\tilde{D}$ measurement inclusive in $m(t\bar{t})$

Covariance for $\tilde{D}$ measurement inclusive in $m(t\bar{t})$

Results for $\tilde{D}$ measurement inclusive in $p_{T}(t)$

Covariance for $\tilde{D}$ measurement inclusive in $p_{T}(t)$

Results for $D$ measurement all bins from from $m(t\bar{t})$ fit

Covariance for $D$ measurement all bins from from $m(t\bar{t})$ fit

Results for $D$ measurement all bins from from $p_{T}(t)$ fit

Covariance for $D$ measurement all bins from from $p_{T}(t)$ fit

Results for $\tilde{D}$ measurement all bins from from $m(t\bar{t})$ fit

Covariance for $\tilde{D}$ measurement all bins from from $m(t\bar{t})$ fit

Results for $\tilde{D}$ measurement all bins from from $p_{T}(t)$ fit

Covariance for $\tilde{D}$ measurement all bins from from $p_{T}(t)$ fit

Results for $D$ measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$

Covariance for $D$ measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$

Results for $\tilde{D}$ measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$

Covariance for $\tilde{D}$ measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$

Results for $\tilde{D}$ measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$ for $|cos(\theta)| < 0.4$

Covariance for $\tilde{D}$ measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$ for $|cos(\theta)| < 0.4$

Results for $D$ measurement differential in $p_{T}(t)$

Covariance for $D$ measurement differential in $p_{T}(t)$

Results for $\tilde{D}$ measurement differential in $p_{T}(t)$

Covariance for $\tilde{D}$ measurement differential in $p_{T}(t)$

Mean transverse momentum $\langle p_{T} \rangle$ for $\Lambda$ and $K^{0}_{S}$ at mid-rapidity as a function of $N_{\text{part}}$ at 3 GeV.

Hadron 4$\pi$ yields per mean number of participants yield as a function of $N_{\text{part}}$.

Mid-rapidity yield ratios of $\Lambda/p$, $\Xi/\Lambda$, and $K^0_{S}/\Lambda$ at 3 GeV.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $\Lambda$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

The transverse-momentum spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for different rapidities.

Hadron mass dependence of mean transverse momentum $\langle p_{T} \rangle$.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section times branching fraction as a function of c&tau; for a selection of models targeted in the CalR+W channel for (a) WALP models and (b) WHS models with a SM Higgs boson mediator.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section times branching fraction as a function of c&tau; for a selection of models targeted in the CalR+W channel for (a) WALP models and (b) WHS models with a SM Higgs boson mediator.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section times branching fraction as a function of c&tau; for a variety of models probed by the CalR+Z channel for (a) ZALP models, (b) ZHS models with the SM Higgs boson as a mediator, and (c) HZZ_d models.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section times branching fraction as a function of c&tau; for a variety of models probed by the CalR+Z channel for (a) ZALP models, (b) ZHS models with the SM Higgs boson as a mediator, and (c) HZZ_d models.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section times branching fraction as a function of c&tau; for a variety of models probed by the CalR+Z channel for (a) ZALP models, (b) ZHS models with the SM Higgs boson as a mediator, and (c) HZZ_d models.

Summary of the observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on C_G as a function of C_W for a variety of ALP mass hypotheses probed by the CalR+R and Cal+Z channels for (a) WALP and (b) ZALP models.

Summary of the observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on C_G as a function of C_W for a variety of ALP mass hypotheses probed by the CalR+R and Cal+Z channels for (a) WALP and (b) ZALP models.

Regions in the ALP mass versus its coupling to gluons scaled by the ALP energy scale g_agg=4C_G/f_a excluded at 95&percnt; CL, for C_W=1, C_W=0.5, C_W=0.3 and C_W=0.15, in the (a) WALP and (b) ZALP models. The contours are obtained by interpolating between the exclusions for different LLP masses considered in the analysis, taking the logical union of the regions excluded for each mass.

Regions in the ALP mass versus its coupling to gluons scaled by the ALP energy scale g_agg=4C_G/f_a excluded at 95&percnt; CL, for C_W=1, C_W=0.5, C_W=0.3 and C_W=0.15, in the (a) WALP and (b) ZALP models. The contours are obtained by interpolating between the exclusions for different LLP masses considered in the analysis, taking the logical union of the regions excluded for each mass.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for HS signals in the CalR+2J channel for samples with mediator masses (a) below 400 GeV and (b) equal to or above 400 GeV. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for HS signals in the CalR+2J channel for samples with mediator masses (a) below 400 GeV and (b) equal to or above 400 GeV. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for WALP and WHS signals in the CalR+W channel for (a) the WALP selection, (b) the CalR+W low-E_T selection and (c) the CalR+W high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for WALP and WHS signals in the CalR+W channel for (a) the WALP selection, (b) the CalR+W low-E_T selection and (c) the CalR+W high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for WALP and WHS signals in the CalR+W channel for (a) the WALP selection, (b) the CalR+W low-E_T selection and (c) the CalR+W high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for ZALP, HZZ_d and ZHS signals in the CalR+Z channel for (a, b) the CalR+Z low-E_T selection and (c, d) the CalR+Z high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for ZALP, HZZ_d and ZHS signals in the CalR+Z channel for (a, b) the CalR+Z low-E_T selection and (c, d) the CalR+Z high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for ZALP, HZZ_d and ZHS signals in the CalR+Z channel for (a, b) the CalR+Z low-E_T selection and (c, d) the CalR+Z high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for ZALP, HZZ_d and ZHS signals in the CalR+Z channel for (a, b) the CalR+Z low-E_T selection and (c, d) the CalR+Z high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the WHS channel for the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 5) and (60, 15), (b) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (c) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (d) (600, 50), (600, 150), and (600, 275), (e) (1000, 50), (1000, 275), and (1000, 475) GeV

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the WHS channel for the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 5) and (60, 15), (b) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (c) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (d) (600, 50), (600, 150), and (600, 275), (e) (1000, 50), (1000, 275), and (1000, 475) GeV

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the WHS channel for the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 5) and (60, 15), (b) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (c) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (d) (600, 50), (600, 150), and (600, 275), (e) (1000, 50), (1000, 275), and (1000, 475) GeV

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the WHS channel for the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 5) and (60, 15), (b) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (c) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (d) (600, 50), (600, 150), and (600, 275), (e) (1000, 50), (1000, 275), and (1000, 475) GeV

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the WHS channel for the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 5) and (60, 15), (b) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (c) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (d) (600, 50), (600, 150), and (600, 275), (e) (1000, 50), (1000, 275), and (1000, 475) GeV

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (125, 16), (b) (600, 150) GeV, and the WALP selection for WALP models with (c) m_ALP = 1 GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (125, 16), (b) (600, 150) GeV, and the WALP selection for WALP models with (c) m_ALP = 1 GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (125, 16), (b) (600, 150) GeV, and the WALP selection for WALP models with (c) m_ALP = 1 GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

The pNN input variable visible transverse momentum $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{vis}}(\mu\tau_{\mathrm{had}})$ is shown in the SR with no cut on the pNN discriminant. The signal shape is normalized to the same integral as the total background prediction. Overflow events are included in the last bins.

The pNN input variable transverse mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}(\mu,E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ is shown in the SR with no cut on the pNN discriminant. The signal shape is normalized to the same integral as the total background prediction. Overflow events are included in the last bins.

The pNN input variable MMC mass $m^{\mathrm{MMC}}(bb\tau\tau)$ is shown in the SR with no cut on the pNN discriminant. The signal shape is normalized to the same integral as the total background prediction. Overflow events are included in the last bins.

Mass distribution of the $\tau^+\tau^-$ system for each of the generated MC signal mass points for the $\mu\tau_{\mathrm{h}}$ category. All distributions are normalized assuming $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=10\%$.

Mass distribution of the $\tau^+\tau^-$ system for each of the generated MC signal mass points for the $e\mu$ category. All distributions are normalized assuming $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=10\%$.

The pNN spectrum in the three bins are shown separately for each mass hypothesis in the ($e\mu$, $1b$) category. The signal shape (normalized to $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=1$) for each corresponding mass hypothesis is overlaid on top of the SM prediction. Bins used for different $m_a$ hypotheses are not statistically independent.

The pNN spectrum in the three bins are shown separately for each mass hypothesis in the ($\mu\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$,$2b$) category. The signal shape (normalized to $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=1$) for each corresponding mass hypothesis is overlaid on top of the SM prediction. Bins used for different $m_a$ hypotheses are not statistically independent.

The pNN spectrum in the three bins are shown separately for each mass hypothesis in the ($e\mu$,$1B$) category. The signal shape (normalized to $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=1$) for each corresponding mass hypothesis is overlaid on top of the SM prediction. Bins used for different $m_a$ hypotheses are not statistically independent.

The pNN spectrum in the three bins are shown separately for each mass hypothesis in the ($e\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$,$2b$) category. The signal shape (normalized to $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)=1$) for each corresponding mass hypothesis is overlaid on top of the SM prediction. Bins used for different $m_a$ hypotheses are not statistically independent.

The observed (solid) 95% C.L. upper limits on $(\sigma(H)/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}}(H)) \mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)$ as a function of $m_a$ and the expected (dashed) limits under the background-only hypothesis when combining all categories. The inner green and outer yellow shaded bands show the $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ uncertainties of the expected limits.

The observed (solid) 95% C.L. upper limits on $(\sigma(H)/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}}(H)) \mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-)$ as a function of $m_a$ and the expected (dashed) limits under the background-only hypothesis when considering different categories based on the heavy-flavor objects separately. When the category is not used for a mass hypothesis, the limit is listed as zero.