Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on ${{(\sigma_{\text{H}}/\sigma_{\text{H}}^{\mathrm{SM}}) \times {{\mathcal{B}(\text{H} \to \text{inv})}}}}$ for the combined VBF, ttH, VH and ggH channels using all available CMS data for 2016--2018, Run1, 2015, and their combination, assuming a SM Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on ${{(\sigma_{\text{H}}/\sigma_{\text{H}}^{\mathrm{SM}}) \times {{\mathcal{B}(\text{H} \to \text{inv})}}}}$ for the VBF, ttH(lep), ttH(had), V(qq)H, Z(ll)H, Z(bb)H and ggH channels using all available CMS data, and their combination, assuming a SM Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV.

The 90% CL upper limits on the spin-independent DM-nucleon scattering cross section in Higgs-portal models, assuming a scalar, fermionic or vectorial DM candidate (with a UV-complete vector model), compared to direct detection experimets CRESST-III, DarkSide-50, LUX_ZEPLIN and PandaX-4T (2022 results).

Postfit event yields in each category and hadronic recoil bin of the ttH category SR for the different background and signal processes summed across 2016, 2017 and 2018 samples. The background and signal yields and the corresponding uncertainties are obtained after performing a combined fit across all of the CRs and SR or CR-only. The Postfit signal contributions for a Higgs boson, produced in ttH, VH (split into WH and ZH), ggH and VBF, decaying to invisible particles with a branching fraction of $\mathcal{B}(\text{H} \to \text{inv}) = 1$, and the observed event yields are reported.

Postfit event yields in each category and hadronic recoil bin of the VH category SR for the different background and signal processes summed across 2016, 2017 and 2018 samples. The background and signal yields and the corresponding uncertainties are obtained after performing a combined fit across all of the CRs and SR or CR-only. The Postfit signal contributions for a Higgs boson, produced in ttH, VH (split into WH and ZH), ggH and VBF, decaying to invisible particles with a branching fraction of $\mathcal{B}(\text{H} \to \text{inv}) = 1$, and the observed event yields are reported.

Postfit event yields in each category and $p\mathrm{_{T}^{miss}}$ bin of the ttH category e$+$jets CR for the different background processes summed across 2016, 2017 and 2018 samples. The background yields and the corresponding uncertainties are obtained after performing a combined fit across all of the CRs and SR or CR-only.

Postfit event yields in each category and $p\mathrm{_{T}^{miss}}$ bin of the VH category e$+$jets CR for the different background processes summed across 2016, 2017 and 2018 samples. The background yields and the corresponding uncertainties are obtained after performing a combined fit across all of the CRs and SR or CR-only.

Postfit event yields in each category and $p\mathrm{_{T}^{miss}}$ bin of the ttH category $\mu+$jets CR for the different background processes summed across 2016, 2017 and 2018 samples. The background yields and the corresponding uncertainties are obtained after performing a combined fit across all of the CRs and SR or CR-only.

Postfit event yields in each category and $p\mathrm{_{T}^{miss}}$ bin of the VH category $\mu+$jets CR for the different background processes summed across 2016, 2017 and 2018 samples. The background yields and the corresponding uncertainties are obtained after performing a combined fit across all of the CRs and SR or CR-only.

Postfit event yields in each category and $p\mathrm{_{T}^{miss}}$ bin of the ttH category ee$+$jets, $\mu\mu+$jets, and $\ell\ell+$jets CRs for the different background processes summed across 2016, 2017 and 2018 samples. The background yields and the corresponding uncertainties are obtained after performing a combined fit across all of the CRs and SR or CR-only.

Postfit event yields in each category and $p\mathrm{_{T}^{miss}}$ bin of the VH category ee$+$jets, $\mu\mu+$jets, and $\gamma+$jets CRs for the different background processes summed across 2016, 2017 and 2018 samples. The background yields and the corresponding uncertainties are obtained after performing a combined fit across all of the CRs and SR or CR-only.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits on the ratio $g_{W'}/g_{W}$ for an SSM-like W$\prime$ boson are shown. The unity coupling ratio (blue dotted curve) corresponds to the SSM common benchmark. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian lower exclusion limits on the NUGIM G(221) mixing angle $\cot(\theta_{E})$ are shown as a function of the W$\prime$ boson mass. The theoretically excluded region is shaded in grey. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of a QBH in an associated $ au$ lepton and neutrino final state. Minimum threshold masses $m_{th}$ of up to 6.6 TeV are excluded at 95% CL. The observed limit (solid line) is obtained from the intersection with the LO QBH cross section (blue dotted curve). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of the process $pp\rightarrow\tau\nu$ mediated via LQ exchange in the t-channel. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The predicted LQ cross section at LO in the three coupling benchmark scenarios is depicted in different colors for $g_{U}=1$. The uncertainty bandy correspond to the sum in quadrature of PDF and scale variations. The first benchmark scenario considers only couplings to left-handed SM fermions (i.e. $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$) and is referred to as "best fit LH". The second benchmark, referred to as "best fit LH+RH", considers $|\beta_{\text{R}}^{\text{b}\tau}|=1$ and all other $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$. In the third "democratic" benchmark, equal couplings only to LH fermions are assumed, i.e. $\beta_{\text{L}}^{ij}=1$ and $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$ for all $i$ and $j$.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH+RH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the democratic scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on each of the Wilson coefficients described by the EFT model based on 2016-2018 data. The three different coupling types represent a left-handed vector coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{L}$), tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{T}$), and scalar-tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{S_{L}}$). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Summary of exclusion limits (expected and observed) calculated at 95% CL for full Run-2 CMS data.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 4.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 4.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to 41.3 fb$^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement (cumulative) for various signal hypothesis. The requirements listed are presented as total efficiencies w.r.t. the previous selection step.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker.

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

TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker.

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

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

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

The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR is shown along with the systematic uncertainty, quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.

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

The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR is shown along with the systematic uncertainty, quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expected and observed upper limits on the AQGC operators $a^Z_C/\Lambda^2$, with no unitarization. The $y$ axis shows the limit on the ratio of the observed cross section to the cross section predicted for each anomalous coupling value ($\sigma_\mathrm{AQGC}$).

Limits on LEP-like dimension-6 anomalous quartic gauge coupling parameters, with and without unitarization via a clipping procedure.

Conversion of limits on $a^W_0$ to dimension-8 $f_{M,i}$ operators, using the assumption of vanishing $WWZ\gamma$ couplings to eliminate some parameters. When quoting limits on one of the operators, the other is fixed to zero. The results for $|f_{M,0}/\Lambda^{4}|$ and $|f_{M,4}/\Lambda^{4}|$ are shown with and without clipping of the signal model at 1.4 TeV, when the other parameter is fixed to the SM value of zero.

Conversion of limits on $a^W_0$ and $a^W_C$ to dimension-8 $f_{M,i}$ operators, using the assumption that all $f_{M,i}$ except one are equal to zero. The results are shown with and without clipping of the signal model at 1.4 TeV.

{Expected and observed limits in the two-dimensional plane of $a^W_0/\Lambda^2$ vs. $a^W_C/\Lambda^2$. The limits are described by analytical ellipses of equation $(x-x0)^2/a^2 + (y-y0)^2/b^2 = 1$ and rotated counter-clockwise by $\theta$ degrees, where $x$ and $y$ in the equation correspond to the $a_0^W$ and $a_C^W$ couplings, respectively.

{Expected and observed limits in the two-dimensional plane of $a^W_0/\Lambda^2$ vs. $a^W_C/\Lambda^2$ with unitarization imposed by clipping the signal model at 1.4 TeV. The limits are described by analytical ellipses of equation $(x-x0)^2/a^2 + (y-y0)^2/b^2 = 1$ and rotated counter-clockwise by $\theta$ degrees, where $x$ and $y$ in the equation correspond to the $a_0^W$ and $a_C^W$ couplings, respectively.

{Expected and observed limits in the two-dimensional plane of $a^Z_0/\Lambda^2$ vs. $a^Z_C/\Lambda^2$. The limits are described by analytical ellipses of equation $(x-x0)^2/a^2 + (y-y0)^2/b^2 = 1$ and rotated counter-clockwise by $\theta$ degrees, where $x$ and $y$ in the equation correspond to the $a_0^Z$ and $a_C^Z$ couplings, respectively.

Distribution of the MLP W+jets score in the CRs for the $T\overline{T}$ search. The observed data, predicted $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario, and the background are all shown. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction before performing the fit to data are also shown.

Distribution of DeepAK8 jet tags in the DeepAK8 CR of the $T\overline{T}$ search. The observed data are shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signals using solid lines, and background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction before performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region.

Distribution of HT in the W+jets CR of the $T\overline{T}$ search. The observed data are shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signals using solid lines, and background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction before performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region.

Distribution of HT in the $T\overline{T}$ CR of the $T\overline{T}$ search. The observed data are shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signals using solid lines, and background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction before performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region.

Numbers of predicted and observed CR events in 2016--2018 data for the $T\overline{T}$ signal hypotheses in the single-lepton channel, after a background-only fit to data. Predicted numbers of signal events before the fit to data are included for comparison, using the singlet branching fraction scenario. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic components, and lepton flavor categories are combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature. Values in the DeepAK8 CR represent the number of large-radius jets rather than number of events.

Numbers of predicted and observed CR events in 2016--2018 data for the $B\overline{B}$ signal hypotheses in the single-lepton channel, after a background-only fit to data. Predicted numbers of signal events before the fit to data are included for comparison, using the singlet branching fraction scenario. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic components, and lepton flavor categories are combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature. Values in the DeepAK8 CR represent the number of large-radius jets rather than number of events.

Numbers of predicted and observed CR events in 2017--2018 data in the same-sign dilepton channel, after a background-only fit to data. Predicted numbers of signal events before the fit to data are included for comparison, using the singlet branching fraction scenario. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic components. Predictions for 2017 and 2018 are combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Distribution of lepton $p_T$ in 2017 in the multilepton channel nonprompt lepton control region for all flavor categories, evaluated with the best-fit nonprompt rates. The uncertainty shown is the quadratic sum of statistical and systematics uncertainties.

Distribution of lepton $p_T$ in 2018 in the multilepton channel nonprompt lepton control region for all flavor categories, evaluated with the best-fit nonprompt rates. The uncertainty shown is the quadratic sum of statistical and systematics uncertainties.

Numbers of predicted and observed CR events in 2017--2018 data in the multilepton channel, after a background-only fit to data. Predicted numbers of signal events before the fit to data are included for comparison, using the singlet branching fraction scenario. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic components. Predictions for 2017 and 2018 are combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Numbers of predicted and observed $T\overline{T}$ SR events in 2016--2018 data in the single-lepton channel, after a background-only fit to data. Predicted numbers of signal events before the fit to data are included for comparison, using the singlet branching fraction scenario. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic components, and lepton flavor categories are combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Distribution of the VLQ score in single-lepton category 1. Observed data is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region. Electron and muon categories have been combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Distribution of the VLQ score in single-lepton category 2. Observed data is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region. Electron and muon categories have been combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Distribution of the VLQ score in single-lepton category 3. Observed data is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region. Electron and muon categories have been combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Distribution of the VLQ score in single-lepton category 4. Observed data is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region. Electron and muon categories have been combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Distribution of the VLQ score in single-lepton category 5. Observed data is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region. Electron and muon categories have been combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Distribution of the VLQ score in single-lepton category 6. Observed data is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region. Electron and muon categories have been combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Distribution of the VLQ score in single-lepton category 7. Observed data is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region. Electron and muon categories have been combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Distribution of the VLQ score in single-lepton category 8. Observed data is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region. Electron and muon categories have been combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Distribution of the VLQ score in single-lepton category 9. Observed data is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region. Electron and muon categories have been combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Distribution of the VLQ score in single-lepton category 10. Observed data is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region. Electron and muon categories have been combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Distribution of the VLQ score in single-lepton category 11. Observed data is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region. Electron and muon categories have been combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Distribution of the VLQ score in single-lepton category 12. Observed data is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region. Electron and muon categories have been combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Distribution of $H_T^{\mathrm{lep}}$ in the same-sign dilepton signal region for $ee$ category. Data from 2017 and 2018 is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signals with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region.

Distribution of $H_T^{\mathrm{lep}}$ in the same-sign dilepton signal region for $e\mu$ category. Data from 2017 and 2018 is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signals with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region.

Distribution of $H_T^{\mathrm{lep}}$ in the same-sign dilepton signal region for $\mu\mu$ category. Data from 2017 and 2018 is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signals with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region.

Distribution of $S_T$ in the multilepton signal region for $eee$ category. Data from 2017 and 2018 is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signals with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region.

Distribution of $S_T$ in the multilepton signal region for $ee\mu$ category. Data from 2017 and 2018 is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signals with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region.

Distribution of $S_T$ in the multilepton signal region for $e\mu\mu$ category. Data from 2017 and 2018 is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signals with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region.

Distribution of $S_T$ in the multilepton signal region for $\mu\mu\mu$ category. Data from 2017 and 2018 is shown using black markers, $T\overline{T}$ signals with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario using solid (dashed) lines, and post-fit background using filled histograms. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction after performing the fit to data are shown by the hatched region.

Numbers of predicted and observed $B\overline{B}$ SR events in 2016--2018 data in the single-lepton channel, after a background-only fit to data. Predicted numbers of signal events before the fit to data are included for comparison, using the singlet branching fraction scenario. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic components, and lepton flavor categories are combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Numbers of predicted and observed SR events in 2017--2018 data in the same-sign dilepton channel, after a background-only fit to data. Predicted numbers of signal events before the fit to data are included for comparison, using the singlet branching fraction scenario. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic components. Predictions for 2017 and 2018 are combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Numbers of predicted and observed SR events in 2017--2018 data in the multilepton channel, after a background-only fit to data. Predicted numbers of signal events before the fit to data are included for comparison, using the singlet branching fraction scenario. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic components. Predictions for 2017 and 2018 are combined with their uncertainties added in quadrature.

Expected and observed lower limits on the VLT quark masses.

Expected and observed lower limits on the VLB quark masses.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on $T\overline{T}$ production cross sections for the singlet combination.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on $T\overline{T}$ production cross sections for the doublet combination.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on $B\overline{B}$ production cross sections for the singlet combination.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on $B\overline{B}$ production cross sections for the doublet combination.

The 95% CL expected lower mass limits on pair-produced T quark masses as functions of their branching ratios to W and H bosons.

The 95% CL observed lower mass limits on pair-produced T quark masses as functions of their branching ratios to W and H bosons.

The 95% CL expected lower mass limits on pair-produced B quark masses as functions of their branching ratios to W and H bosons.

The 95% CL observed lower mass limits on pair-produced B quark masses as functions of their branching ratios to W and H bosons.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded inclusive leptonic asymmetry. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ < 500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [500,750] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [750,1000] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [1000,1500] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ > 1500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ < 30 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [30,120] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > 120 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 200 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [200,300] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [300,400] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 400 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 20 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [20, 70] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 70 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

The observed and expected (in parentheses) 95% CL lower mass limits on RPV SUSY, Z′ ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) , and QBH signals for the e$\mu$, e$\tau$, and $\mu\tau$ channels.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the $ au$ sneutrino mass in an RPV SUSY model for the e$\mu$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red and blue solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the tau sneutrino mass for two different values of couplings.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the $ au$ sneutrino mass in an RPV SUSY model for the e$\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red and blue solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the tau sneutrino mass for two different values of couplings.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the $ au$ sneutrino mass in an RPV SUSY model for the $\mu\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red and blue solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the tau sneutrino mass for two different values of couplings.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for a Z′ ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) boson with LFV decays, in the e$\mu$ channel.The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the Z′ mass.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for a Z′ ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) boson with LFV decays, in the e$\tau$ channel.The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the Z′ mass.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for a Z′ ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) boson with LFV decays, in the $\mu\tau$ channel.The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the Z′ mass.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for quantum black hole production in an ADD model with $n=4$ extra dimensions, in the e$\mu$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the QBH threshold mass.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for quantum black hole production in an ADD model with $n=4$ extra dimensions, in the e$\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the QBH threshold mass.

Expected (black dashed line) and observed (black solid line) 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for quantum black hole production in an ADD model with $n=4$ extra dimensions, in the $\mu\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits. The red solid lines show the product of cross section times branching fraction as a function of the QBH threshold mass.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the RPV SUSY model in the plane of $\tau$ sneutrino mass and $\lambda'$ coupling, for four values of $\lambda$ couplings for the e$\mu$ channel. The regions to the left of and above the curves are excluded.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the RPV SUSY model in the plane of $\tau$ sneutrino mass and $\lambda'$ coupling, for four values of $\lambda$ couplings for the e$\tau$ channel. The regions to the left of and above the curves are excluded.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the RPV SUSY model in the plane of $\tau$ sneutrino mass and $\lambda'$ coupling, for four values of $\lambda$ couplings for the $\mu\tau$ channel. The regions to the left of and above the curves are excluded.

Model-independent upper limits at 95% CL on the product of cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance are shown. Observed (expected) limits are shown in black solid (dashed) lines for the e$\mu$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits.

Model-independent upper limits at 95% CL on the product of cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance are shown. Observed (expected) limits are shown in black solid (dashed) lines for the e$\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits.

Model-independent upper limits at 95% CL on the product of cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance are shown. Observed (expected) limits are shown in black solid (dashed) lines for the $\mu\tau$ channel. The shaded bands represent the one and two standard deviation (s.d.) uncertainties in the expected limits.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 2.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 2.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 2.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 2.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 2.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "channel_year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 2.

Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma\times\mathcal{B}^2(\mathrm{H}_1\rightarrow b\bar{b})$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_1}}$ for $m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=1600\;\mathrm{GeV}$.

Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma\times\mathcal{B}^2(\mathrm{H}_1\rightarrow b\bar{b})$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_1}}$ for $m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=2000\;\mathrm{GeV}$.

Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma\times\mathcal{B}^2(\mathrm{H}_1\rightarrow b\bar{b})$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_1}}$ for $m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=2200\;\mathrm{GeV}$.

Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma\times\mathcal{B}^2(\mathrm{H}_1\rightarrow b\bar{b})$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_1}}$ for $m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=2400\;\mathrm{GeV}$.

Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma\times\mathcal{B}^2(\mathrm{H}_1\rightarrow b\bar{b})$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_1}}$ for $m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=2600\;\mathrm{GeV}$.

Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma\times\mathcal{B}^2(\mathrm{H}_1\rightarrow b\bar{b})$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_1}}$ for $m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=2800\;\mathrm{GeV}$.

Measured inclusive fiducial $tt\gamma$ production cross section in the dilepton final state for the different dilepton-flavour channels and combined.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ .

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ .

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ .

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ .

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value as a function of Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$ from the interpretation of the dilepton measurement.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value as a function of Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$ from the interpretation of the dilepton and lepton+jets measurements combined.

One-dimensional 68 and 95% CL intervals obtained for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon $p_{T}$ distribution from the dilepton analysis, or the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses.

Comparison of observed $95\%$ CL intervals for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$. Results are shown from a CMS ttZ measurement [JHEP 03 (2020) 056], from a CMS ttZ & tZq interpretation [arXiv:2107.13896], from a CMS ttG (lepton+jets) measurement [arXiv:2107.01508], from this measurement, and from a global fit by J. Ellis et al. [JHEP 04 (2021) 279].

Number of predicted signal events in the $\mu\mu X$ final states, for several benchmark signal hypotheses for Majorana HNL. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The 95% CL limits on $|V_{Ne}|^2$ as a function of the HNL mass for a Majorana HNL. Values of $-1$ indicate that no limit is available for the mass point.

The 95% CL limits on $|V_{N\mu}|^2$ as a function of the HNL mass for a Majorana HNL. Values of $-1$ indicate that no limit is available for the mass point.

The 95% CL limits on $|V_{Ne}|^2$ as a function of the HNL mass for a Dirac HNL. Values of $-1$ indicate that no limit is available for the mass point.

The 95% CL limits on $|V_{N\mu}|^2$ as a function of the HNL mass for a Dirac HNL. Values of $-1$ indicate that no limit is available for the mass point.

Covariance matrix for the background prediction in the signal region bins for the $eeX$ final states. The bin labels specify the channel, the $m(\ell_2,\ell_3)$ bin, and the $\Delta_{\mathrm{2D}}$ bin.

Covariance matrix for the background prediction in the signal region bins for the $\mu\mu X$ final states. The bin labels specify the channel, the $m(\ell_2,\ell_3)$ bin, and the $\Delta_{\mathrm{2D}}$ bin.

Correlation matrix for the background prediction the signal region bins for the $eeX$ final states. The bin labels specify the channel, the $m(\ell_2,\ell_3)$ bin, and the $\Delta_{\mathrm{2D}}$ bin.

Correlation matrix for the background prediction the signal region bins for the $\mu\mu X$ final states. The bin labels specify the channel, the $m(\ell_2,\ell_3)$ bin, and the $\Delta_{\mathrm{2D}}$ bin.

Mean lifetime and production cross section for HNLs of Majorana nature, assuming the decay to three charged leptons and coupling to only electrons or muons, as evaluated from simulated event samples.

Theory cross sections vs m($\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$) for SMS model TChiHH-G, $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1, \widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ NLSPs only.

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the production cross sections of the TChiHH signal model as a function of the $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses. Relative to Fig. 13, the binning of the table is adjusted to align with the model points that were sampled. In addition, a small correction has been applied that affects the cross section upper limits for points with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = 1$ GeV. For that row of points in the figure, the small region of model phase space reached by both the resolved and boosted selections was inadvertently double counted in computing the signal contribution to the predicted yield.

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Cross section, 95% CL upper limit plus theory vs m($\widetilde{g}$) for SMS model T5HH.

Pre-fit background covariance matrix $\sigma_{xy}$ for the 22 analysis bins, ordered as in Fig. 10.

Pre-fit background correlation matrix $\rho_{xy}$ for the 22 analysis bins, ordered as in Fig. 10.

Significance vs $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2), m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1))$ for SMS model TChiHH.

Significance vs $m(\widetilde{g})$ for SMS model T5HH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $275, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $300, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $300, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $50) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $450, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $750, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $750, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $200) for SMS model TChiHH.

Efficiency vs $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1)$ for SMS model TChiHH-G. The denominator includes all 22 signal regions, and assumes $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}$-->$\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})=100\%$.

Efficiency vs $m(\widetilde{g})$ for SMS model T5HH. The denominator includes all 22 signal regions, and no constraint on $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}$-->$\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})$.

Efficiency vs $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2), m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1))$ for SMS model TChiHH. The denominator includes all 22 signal regions, and assumes $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}$-->$\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})=100\%$.

Signal and control region populations for the resolved signature.

Signal and control region populations for the boosted signature.

Cut flow table for the resolved topology showing expected event yields at 137 fb$^{-1}$ for selected signal models as successive selections are applied.

Cut flow table for the boosted topology showing expected event yields at 137 fb$^{-1}$ for selected signal model points as successive selections are applied. Here the hadronic baseline is defined by $N_{\mathrm{jet}}\geq$2, \ptmiss$>$300 GeV, $\Delta\phi$ cuts, and the isolated lepton and track vetoes.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(hb --> PHI X) . B(PHI --> mu+mu-) as a function of signal mass for signal lifetime of 100 mm

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(H --> ZD ZD) . B(ZD --> mu+mu-) as a function of signal mass for signal lifetime of 1 mm

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(H --> ZD ZD) . B(ZD --> mu+mu-) as a function of signal mass for signal lifetime of 1 mm

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(H --> ZD ZD) . B(ZD --> mu+mu-) as a function of signal mass for signal lifetime of 100 mm

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(H --> ZD ZD) . B(ZD --> mu+mu-) as a function of signal mass for signal lifetime of 100 mm

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(H --> ZD ZD) as a function of signal mass for signal lifetime of 1 mm

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(H --> ZD ZD) as a function of signal mass for signal lifetime of 1 mm

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(H --> ZD ZD) as a function of signal mass for signal lifetime of 100 mm

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(H --> ZD ZD) as a function of signal mass for signal lifetime of 100 mm

Observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(hb --> PHI X) . B(PHI --> mu+mu-) in the parameter space containing signal mass and signal lifetime. The ROOT file containing the values are available as additional resource

Observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(hb --> PHI X) . B(PHI --> mu+mu-) in the parameter space containing signal mass and signal lifetime. The ROOT file containing the values is available as additional resource

Observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(H --> ZD ZD) in the parameter space containing signal mass and signal lifetime. The ROOT file containing the values are available as additional resource

Observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(H --> ZD ZD) in the parameter space containing signal mass and signal lifetime. The ROOT file containing the values is available as additional resource

Region excluded at 95% CL using this search for the inflaton model in the parameter space containing signal mass and square of the signal mixing angle

Region excluded at 95% CL using this search for the inflaton model in the parameter space containing signal mass and square of the signal mixing angle

Observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(H --> ZD ZD) in the parameter space containing signal mass and kinetic mixing parameter. The ROOT file containing the values are available as additional resource

Observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(H --> ZD ZD) in the parameter space containing signal mass and kinetic mixing parameter. The ROOT file containing the values is available as additional resource

Observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(hb --> PHI X) . B(PHI --> mu+mu-) as a function of signal lifetime for various representative signal mass hypotheses

Observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(H --> ZD ZD) as a function of signal lifetime for various representative signal mass hypotheses

CMS and LHCb observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(hb --> PHI X) . B(PHI --> mu+mu-) as a function of signal mass for signal lifetime of 1 mm

CMS and LHCb observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(hb --> PHI X) . B(PHI --> mu+mu-) as a function of signal mass for signal lifetime of 10 mm

CMS and LHCb observed limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction B(hb --> PHI X) . B(PHI --> mu+mu-) as a function of signal mass for signal lifetime of 100 mm

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 0.2 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 0 GeV and no requirement on muon isolation

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 0.2 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 0 GeV and two isolated muons

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 0.2 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 25 GeV and no requirement on muon isolation

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 0.2 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 25 GeV and two isolated muons

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 1.0 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 0 GeV and no requirement on muon isolation

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 1.0 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 0 GeV and two isolated muons

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 1.0 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 25 GeV and no requirement on muon isolation

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 1.0 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 25 GeV and two isolated muons

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 2.4 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 0 GeV and no requirement on muon isolation

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 2.4 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 0 GeV and two isolated muons

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 2.4 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 25 GeV and no requirement on muon isolation

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 2.4 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 25 GeV and two isolated muons

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 3.1 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 0 GeV and no requirement on muon isolation

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 3.1 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 0 GeV and two isolated muons

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 3.1 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 25 GeV and no requirement on muon isolation

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 3.1 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 25 GeV and two isolated muons

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 7.0 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 0 GeV and no requirement on muon isolation

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 7.0 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 0 GeV and two isolated muons

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 7.0 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 25 GeV and no requirement on muon isolation

Observed limits at 95% CL on number of signal events in aggregate signal region 7.0 cm $\leq$ lxy < 11.0 cm, dimuon pt $\geq$ 25 GeV and two isolated muons

The normalized distribution of the characteristic variable $\Delta\phi_{\text{min}}$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The requirement on this variable is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distribution of the characteristic variable $\Delta\phi_{\text{min}}$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The requirement on this variable is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distribution of the characteristic variable $\Delta\phi_{\text{min}}$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The requirement on this variable is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $m_{\text{SD}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $m_{\text{SD}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $m_{\text{SD}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $D_{p_{\text{T}}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $D_{p_{\text{T}}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $D_{p_{\text{T}}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized BDT discriminator distribution for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models.

The normalized BDT discriminator distribution for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models.

The normalized BDT discriminator distribution for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models.

The BDT ROC curves for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets, comparing the simulated SM backgrounds with one signal model with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$.

The BDT ROC curves for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets, comparing the simulated SM backgrounds with one signal model with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$.

The BDT ROC curves for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets, comparing the simulated SM backgrounds with one signal model with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$.

The BDT ROC curves for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets, comparing the simulated SM backgrounds with one signal model with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$.

The BDT ROC curves for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets, comparing the simulated SM backgrounds with one signal model with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$.

The BDT ROC curves for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets, comparing the simulated SM backgrounds with one signal model with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$.

The BDT ROC curves for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets, comparing the simulated SM backgrounds with one signal model with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$.

The BDT ROC curves for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets, comparing the simulated SM backgrounds with one signal model with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$.

The BDT ROC curves for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets, comparing the simulated SM backgrounds with one signal model with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$.

The BDT ROC curves for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets, comparing the simulated SM backgrounds with one signal model with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$.

The BDT ROC curves for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets, comparing the simulated SM backgrounds with one signal model with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$.

The BDT ROC curves for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ jets, comparing the simulated SM backgrounds with one signal model with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$.

The $m_{\text{T}}$ distribution for the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, comparing the observed data to the background prediction from the analytic fit ($g_{3}(x) = \exp(p_{1}x)x^{p_{2}(1+p_{3}\ln(x))}$, $x = m_{\text{T}}/\sqrt{s}$). The distributions from several example signal models, with cross sections corresponding to the observed limits, are superimposed.

The $m_{\text{T}}$ distribution for the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, comparing the observed data to the background prediction from the analytic fit ($g_{3}(x) = \exp(p_{1}x)x^{p_{2}(1+p_{3}\ln(x))}$, $x = m_{\text{T}}/\sqrt{s}$). The distributions from several example signal models, with cross sections corresponding to the observed limits, are superimposed.

The $m_{\text{T}}$ distribution for the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, comparing the observed data to the background prediction from the analytic fit ($g_{3}(x) = \exp(p_{1}x)x^{p_{2}(1+p_{3}\ln(x))}$, $x = m_{\text{T}}/\sqrt{s}$). The distributions from several example signal models, with cross sections corresponding to the observed limits, are superimposed.

The $m_{\text{T}}$ distribution for the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, comparing the observed data to the background prediction from the analytic fit ($g_{2}(x) = \exp(p_{1}x)x^{p_{2}}$, $x = m_{\text{T}}/\sqrt{s}$). The distributions from several example signal models, with cross sections corresponding to the observed limits, are superimposed.

The $m_{\text{T}}$ distribution for the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, comparing the observed data to the background prediction from the analytic fit ($g_{2}(x) = \exp(p_{1}x)x^{p_{2}}$, $x = m_{\text{T}}/\sqrt{s}$). The distributions from several example signal models, with cross sections corresponding to the observed limits, are superimposed.

The $m_{\text{T}}$ distribution for the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, comparing the observed data to the background prediction from the analytic fit ($g_{2}(x) = \exp(p_{1}x)x^{p_{2}}$, $x = m_{\text{T}}/\sqrt{s}$). The distributions from several example signal models, with cross sections corresponding to the observed limits, are superimposed.

The $m_{\text{T}}$ distribution for the high-SVJ2 signal region, comparing the observed data to the background prediction from the analytic fit ($g_{2}(x) = \exp(p_{1}x)x^{p_{2}}$, $x = m_{\text{T}}/\sqrt{s}$). The distributions from several example signal models, with cross sections corresponding to the observed limits, are superimposed.

The $m_{\text{T}}$ distribution for the high-SVJ2 signal region, comparing the observed data to the background prediction from the analytic fit ($g_{2}(x) = \exp(p_{1}x)x^{p_{2}}$, $x = m_{\text{T}}/\sqrt{s}$). The distributions from several example signal models, with cross sections corresponding to the observed limits, are superimposed.

The $m_{\text{T}}$ distribution for the high-SVJ2 signal region, comparing the observed data to the background prediction from the analytic fit ($g_{2}(x) = \exp(p_{1}x)x^{p_{2}}$, $x = m_{\text{T}}/\sqrt{s}$). The distributions from several example signal models, with cross sections corresponding to the observed limits, are superimposed.

The $m_{\text{T}}$ distribution for the low-SVJ2 signal region, comparing the observed data to the background prediction from the analytic fit ($g_{2}(x) = \exp(p_{1}x)x^{p_{2}}$, $x = m_{\text{T}}/\sqrt{s}$). The distributions from several example signal models, with cross sections corresponding to the observed limits, are superimposed.

The $m_{\text{T}}$ distribution for the low-SVJ2 signal region, comparing the observed data to the background prediction from the analytic fit ($g_{2}(x) = \exp(p_{1}x)x^{p_{2}}$, $x = m_{\text{T}}/\sqrt{s}$). The distributions from several example signal models, with cross sections corresponding to the observed limits, are superimposed.

The $m_{\text{T}}$ distribution for the low-SVJ2 signal region, comparing the observed data to the background prediction from the analytic fit ($g_{2}(x) = \exp(p_{1}x)x^{p_{2}}$, $x = m_{\text{T}}/\sqrt{s}$). The distributions from several example signal models, with cross sections corresponding to the observed limits, are superimposed.

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the inclusive search for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the inclusive search for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the inclusive search for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the inclusive search for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the inclusive search for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the inclusive search for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the BDT-based search for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the BDT-based search for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the BDT-based search for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the BDT-based search for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the BDT-based search for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the BDT-based search for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The observed exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 68% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The lower 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The upper 95% expected exclusion for the nominal $\text{Z}^{\prime}$ cross section.

The 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the inclusive search for the $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ variations.

The 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the inclusive search for the $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ variations.

The 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the inclusive search for the $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ variations.

The 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the BDT-based search for the $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ variations.

The 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the BDT-based search for the $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ variations.

The 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the BDT-based search for the $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ variations.

The three two-dimensional signal model parameter scans.

The three two-dimensional signal model parameter scans.

The three two-dimensional signal model parameter scans.

Metrics representing the performance of the BDT for the benchmark signal model ($m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$), compared to each of the major SM background processes.

Metrics representing the performance of the BDT for the benchmark signal model ($m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$), compared to each of the major SM background processes.

Metrics representing the performance of the BDT for the benchmark signal model ($m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$), compared to each of the major SM background processes.

The range of effects on the signal yield for each systematic uncertainty and the total. Values less than 0.01% are rounded to 0.0%.

The range of effects on the signal yield for each systematic uncertainty and the total. Values less than 0.01% are rounded to 0.0%.

The range of effects on the signal yield for each systematic uncertainty and the total. Values less than 0.01% are rounded to 0.0%.

The normalized distribution of the variable $m_{\text{T}}$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The requirement on this variable is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distribution of the variable $m_{\text{T}}$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The requirement on this variable is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distribution of the variable $m_{\text{T}}$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The requirement on this variable is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distribution of the variable $\Delta\eta(\text{J}_{1},\text{J}_{2})$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The requirement on this variable is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distribution of the variable $\Delta\eta(\text{J}_{1},\text{J}_{2})$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The requirement on this variable is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distribution of the variable $\Delta\eta(\text{J}_{1},\text{J}_{2})$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The requirement on this variable is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distribution of the variable $p_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The $R_{\text{T}}$ requirement is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distribution of the variable $p_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The $R_{\text{T}}$ requirement is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distribution of the variable $p_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The $R_{\text{T}}$ requirement is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distribution of the variable $N_{\text{e}}$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The requirement on this variable is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distribution of the variable $N_{\text{e}}$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The requirement on this variable is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distribution of the variable $N_{\text{e}}$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The requirement on this variable is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distribution of the variable $N_{\mu}$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The requirement on this variable is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distribution of the variable $N_{\mu}$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The requirement on this variable is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distribution of the variable $N_{\mu}$ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. The requirement on this variable is omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distribution of $\Delta\eta(\text{J}_{1},\text{J}_{2})$ vs. $R_{\text{T}}$ for the simulated QCD background. The preselection requirements on both variables are omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied.

The normalized distribution of $\Delta\eta(\text{J}_{1},\text{J}_{2})$ vs. $R_{\text{T}}$ for the simulated QCD background. The preselection requirements on both variables are omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied.

The normalized distribution of $\Delta\eta(\text{J}_{1},\text{J}_{2})$ vs. $R_{\text{T}}$ for the simulated QCD background. The preselection requirements on both variables are omitted, but all other preselection requirements are applied.

The normalized distribution of $p_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ vs. $m_{\text{T}}$ for the simulated QCD background. All selection requirements are omitted, except for the requirement of two high-$p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets.

The normalized distribution of $p_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ vs. $m_{\text{T}}$ for the simulated QCD background. All selection requirements are omitted, except for the requirement of two high-$p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets.

The normalized distribution of $p_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ vs. $m_{\text{T}}$ for the simulated QCD background. All selection requirements are omitted, except for the requirement of two high-$p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets.

The normalized distribution of $R_{\text{T}}$ vs. $m_{\text{T}}$ for the simulated QCD background. All selection requirements are omitted, except for the requirement of two high-$p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets.

The normalized distribution of $R_{\text{T}}$ vs. $m_{\text{T}}$ for the simulated QCD background. All selection requirements are omitted, except for the requirement of two high-$p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets.

The normalized distribution of $R_{\text{T}}$ vs. $m_{\text{T}}$ for the simulated QCD background. All selection requirements are omitted, except for the requirement of two high-$p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $\tau_{21}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $\tau_{21}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $\tau_{21}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $\tau_{32}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $\tau_{32}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $\tau_{32}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $N_{2}^{(1)}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $N_{2}^{(1)}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $N_{2}^{(1)}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $N_{3}^{(1)}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $N_{3}^{(1)}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $N_{3}^{(1)}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $g_{\text{jet}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $g_{\text{jet}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $g_{\text{jet}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $\sigma_{\text{major}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $\sigma_{\text{major}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $\sigma_{\text{major}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $\sigma_{\text{minor}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $\sigma_{\text{minor}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $\sigma_{\text{minor}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $\Delta\phi(\vec{J},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}})$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $\Delta\phi(\vec{J},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}})$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $\Delta\phi(\vec{J},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}})$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $f_{\text{h}^{\pm}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $f_{\text{h}^{\pm}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $f_{\text{h}^{\pm}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $f_{\text{e}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $f_{\text{e}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $f_{\text{e}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $f_{\mu}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $f_{\mu}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $f_{\mu}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $f_{\text{h}^{0}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $f_{\text{h}^{0}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $f_{\text{h}^{0}}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $f_{\gamma}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $f_{\gamma}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The normalized distributions of the BDT input variable $f_{\gamma}$ for the two highest $p_{\text{T}}$ wide jets from the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models with varying $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}}$ values. Each sample's jet $p_{\text{T}}$ distribution is weighted to match a reference distribution (see text). The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark coupling strength.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark coupling strength.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark coupling strength.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark coupling strength.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark coupling strength.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark coupling strength.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark coupling strength.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark coupling strength.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the high-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark coupling strength.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark coupling strength.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark coupling strength.

The product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the low-SVJ2 signal region, for variations of the mediator mass and the dark coupling strength.

Comparison of different the dijet mass $m_{\text{J}\text{J}}$, the transverse mass $m_{\text{T}}$, and the Monte Carlo (MC) mass $m_{\text{MC}}$ for a signal model with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 2.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. No selection is applied, except that there must be at least two jets. $m_{\text{MC}}$ is computed by adding the generator-level four-vectors for invisible particles to the dijet system, to represent the achievable resolution if the invisible component were fully measured. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

Comparison of different the dijet mass $m_{\text{J}\text{J}}$, the transverse mass $m_{\text{T}}$, and the Monte Carlo (MC) mass $m_{\text{MC}}$ for a signal model with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 2.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. No selection is applied, except that there must be at least two jets. $m_{\text{MC}}$ is computed by adding the generator-level four-vectors for invisible particles to the dijet system, to represent the achievable resolution if the invisible component were fully measured. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

Comparison of different the dijet mass $m_{\text{J}\text{J}}$, the transverse mass $m_{\text{T}}$, and the Monte Carlo (MC) mass $m_{\text{MC}}$ for a signal model with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 2.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. No selection is applied, except that there must be at least two jets. $m_{\text{MC}}$ is computed by adding the generator-level four-vectors for invisible particles to the dijet system, to represent the achievable resolution if the invisible component were fully measured. The last bin of each histogram includes the overflow events.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $m_{\text{dark}}$ values for the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $m_{\text{dark}}$ values for the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $m_{\text{dark}}$ values for the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $m_{\text{dark}}$ values for the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $m_{\text{dark}}$ values for the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $m_{\text{dark}}$ values for the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $r_{\text{inv}}$ values for the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $r_{\text{inv}}$ values for the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $r_{\text{inv}}$ values for the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $r_{\text{inv}}$ values for the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $r_{\text{inv}}$ values for the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $r_{\text{inv}}$ values for the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ values for the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ values for the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ values for the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ values for the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ values for the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

$m_{\text{T}}$ distributions for signal models with different $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ values for the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ inclusive signal region.

The proportions of each SM background process in the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region.

The proportions of each SM background process in the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region.

The proportions of each SM background process in the high-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region.

The proportions of each SM background process in the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region.

The proportions of each SM background process in the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region.

The proportions of each SM background process in the low-$R_{\text{T}}$ signal region.

The proportions of each SM background process in the high-SVJ2 signal region.

The proportions of each SM background process in the high-SVJ2 signal region.

The proportions of each SM background process in the high-SVJ2 signal region.

The proportions of each SM background process in the low-SVJ2 signal region.

The proportions of each SM background process in the low-SVJ2 signal region.

The proportions of each SM background process in the low-SVJ2 signal region.

The 95% CL expected upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the inclusive search for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The 95% CL expected upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the inclusive search for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The 95% CL expected upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the inclusive search for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The 95% CL expected upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the inclusive search for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The 95% CL expected upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the inclusive search for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The 95% CL expected upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the inclusive search for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The 95% CL expected upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the BDT-based search for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The 95% CL expected upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the BDT-based search for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The 95% CL expected upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the BDT-based search for variations of the mediator mass and the dark hadron mass.

The 95% CL expected upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the BDT-based search for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The 95% CL expected upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the BDT-based search for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

The 95% CL expected upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction from the BDT-based search for variations of the mediator mass and the invisible fraction.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for the major background processes. Statistical uncertainties, at most 1.8%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for the major background processes. Statistical uncertainties, at most 1.8%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for the major background processes. Statistical uncertainties, at most 1.8%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 2.1\,\text{TeV}$, varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.5%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 2.1\,\text{TeV}$, varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.5%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 2.1\,\text{TeV}$, varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.5%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.4%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.4%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.4%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 4.1\,\text{TeV}$, varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.4%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 4.1\,\text{TeV}$, varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.4%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 4.1\,\text{TeV}$, varying $m_{\text{dark}}$ values, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.4%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 2.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 2.6%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 2.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 2.6%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 2.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 2.6%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 1.2%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 1.2%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 1.2%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 4.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.9%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 4.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.9%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 4.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, varying $r_{\text{inv}}$ values, and $\alpha_{\text{dark}} = \alpha_{\text{dark}}^{\text{peak}}$. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.9%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 2.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and varying $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ values. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.4%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 2.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and varying $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ values. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.4%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 2.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and varying $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ values. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.4%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and varying $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ values. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.4%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and varying $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ values. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.4%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 3.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and varying $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ values. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.4%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 4.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and varying $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ values. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.4%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 4.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and varying $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ values. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.4%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

Relative efficiencies in % for each step of the event selection process for signals with $m_{\text{Z}^{\prime}} = 4.1\,\text{TeV}$, $m_{\text{dark}} = 20\,\text{GeV}$, $r_{\text{inv}} = 0.3$, and varying $\alpha_{\text{dark}}$ values. Statistical uncertainties, at most 0.4%, are omitted. The line "Efficiency [%]" is the absolute efficiency after the final selection. The subsequent lines show the efficiency for each signal region, relative to the final selection.

SR1 diboson invariant mass distribution in the resolved tagged category after fitting the signal and sideband regions using a signal (ALP linear ZZ) plus background model. The last bin includes events with diboson invariant masses up to 3000 GeV. The signal is normalized to the 95% CL cross section limit at $f_a$ = 3 TeV (the scale factor used in the original figure for better visibility is not applied here).

SR2 diboson invariant mass distribution in the boosted untagged category after fitting the signal and sideband regions using a signal (ALP chiral ZH) plus background model. The last bin includes events with diboson invariant masses up to 3000 GeV. The signal is normalized to the 95% CL cross section limit at $f_a$ = 3 TeV (the scale factor used in the original figure for better visibility is not applied here).

SR2 diboson invariant mass distribution in the boosted tagged category after fitting the signal and sideband regions using a signal (ALP chiral ZH) plus background model. The last bin includes events with diboson invariant masses up to 3000 GeV. The signal is normalized to the 95% CL cross section limit at $f_a$ = 3 TeV.

SR2 diboson invariant mass distribution in the resolved untagged category after fitting the signal and sideband regions using a signal (ALP chiral ZH) plus background model. The last bin includes events with diboson invariant masses up to 3000 GeV. The signal is normalized to the 95% CL cross section limit at $f_a$ = 3 TeV (the scale factor used in the original figure for better visibility is not applied here).

SR2 diboson invariant mass distribution in the resolved tagged category after fitting the signal and sideband regions using a signal (ALP chiral ZH) plus background model. The last bin includes events with diboson invariant masses up to 3000 GeV. The signal is normalized to the 95% CL cross section limit at $f_a$ = 3 TeV (the scale factor used in the original figure for better visibility is not applied here).

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma \mathcal{B}$(G -> ZZ) as a function of the resonance mass, taking into account all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The electron and muon channels and the various categories used in the analysis are combined. The inner green band and the outer yellow band represent the 68 and 95% coverage of the expected limits in the background-only hypothesis.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma \mathcal{B}$(W' -> ZW) as a function of the resonance mass, taking into account all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The electron and muon channels and the various categories used in the analysis are combined. The inner green band and the outer yellow band represent the 68 and 95% coverage of the expected limits in the background-only hypothesis.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the product of the ALP coupling to gluons and the coupling to Z bosons as a function of the mass scale $f_a$ for ALP masses smaller than 100 GeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the product of the ALP coupling to gluons and the chiral $a_\widetilde{2D}$ coupling as a function of the mass scale $f_a$ for ALP masses smaller than 100 GeV.

The background estimate and the observed data in the number of tagged jets >= 2 bin, for each of the seven validation samples (VS$_{1}$ through VS$_{7}$), along with the signal sample (Sig S). Signal model distributions for scalar masses of 15 and 55 GeV with a proper mean decay length of 20 mm are also shown. The Higgs boson branching fraction to long-lived scalars (B(H$\rightarrow $ SS)) is set to 20%.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the Higgs boson branching fraction to long-lived scalars B(H$\rightarrow$ SS) as a function of the mean proper decay length of the scalar for scalar mass 15 GeV and the S$\rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the Higgs boson branching fraction to long-lived scalars B(H$\rightarrow$ SS) as a function of the mean proper decay length of the scalar for scalar mass 40 GeV and the S$\rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the Higgs boson branching fraction to long-lived scalars B(H$\rightarrow$ SS) as a function of the mean proper decay length of the scalar for scalar mass 55 GeV and the S$\rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the Higgs boson branching fraction to long-lived scalars B(H$\rightarrow$ SS) as a function of the mean proper decay length of the scalar for scalar mass 15 GeV and the S$\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the Higgs boson branching fraction to long-lived scalars B(H$\rightarrow$ SS) as a function of the mean proper decay length of the scalar for scalar mass 40 GeV and the S$\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the Higgs boson branching fraction to long-lived scalars B(H$\rightarrow$ SS) as a function of the mean proper decay length of the scalar for scalar mass 55 GeV and the S$\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

Distribution of the three leading leptons flavour in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the inclusive cross section fit

Efficiency, acceptance, and proportion of events with leptonic tau decays in WZ production

WZ fiducial cross section in the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

WZ total cross section extrapolated from the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

Distribution of the total lepton charge in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the inclusive cross section fit

W$^{+}$Z fiducial cross section in the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

W$^{-}$Z fiducial cross section in the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

WZ charge asymmetry ratio measured on each of the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

Distribution of the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the W polarization fit

Distribution of the cosine of the Z polarization angle in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the Z polarization fit

Best fits to the W and Z polarization fractions

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $f_O^W$-$f_{L}^W-f_R^W$ plane

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $f_O^Z$-$f_{L}^Z-f_R^Z$ plane

Distribution of the invariant mass of the WZ system in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the inclusive cross section fit

Best fit values and one dimensional confidence regions in several EFT coefficients obtained from the EFT fit considering both the SM interferences and purely BSM (order $\Lambda^{-2}$ and $\Lambda^{-4}$) terms

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $c_{www}$-$c_{w}$ plane

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $c_{w}$-$c_{b}$ plane

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $c_{www}$-$c_{w}$ plane

Best fit values and one dimensional confidence regions in several EFT coefficients obtained from the EFT fit considering only the SM-EFT interference (order $\Lambda^{-2}$) terms

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $c_{w}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $c_{b}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $c_{www}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $\tilde{c}_{www}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $\tilde{c}_{w}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the Z boson

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the Z boson

Response matrix for the $p_{T}$ of the Z boson obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the leading jet

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the leading jet

Response matrix for the $p_{T}$ of the leading jet obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the jet multiplicity

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the jet multiplicity

Response matrix for the jet multiplicity obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the invariant mass of the WZ system

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the invariant mass of the WZ system

Response matrix for the invariant mass of the WZ system obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the lepton associated to the W boson

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the lepton associated to the W boson

Response matrix for the $p_{T}$ of the lepton associated to the W boson obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the lepton associated to the W boson, W$^{+}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the lepton associated to the W boson, W$^{+}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the lepton associated to the W boson, W$^{-}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the lepton associated to the W boson, W$^{-}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge

Response matrix for the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge, W$^{+}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge, W$^{+}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge, W$^{-}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge, W$^{-}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the Z polarization angle

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the Z polarization angle

Response matrix for the cosine of the Z polarization angle obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the Z polarization angle, W$^{+}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the Z polarization angle, W$^{+}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the Z polarization angle, W$^{-}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the Z polarization angle, W$^{-}$Z only

Correlation between the Wilson coefficients (in %), after the 5D fit to data.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with scalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with scalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with pseudoscalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with pseudoscalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the fundamental Planck scale $M_{D}$ as a function of the number of extra dimensions $d$.

Exclusion limits on the fundamental Planck scale $M_{D}$ as a function of the number of extra dimensions $d$.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Tagging efficiency for AK8 jets. The efficiency includes the effect of the machine-learning based DeepAK8 tagger, as well as the application of the mass window requirement on the jet. The efficiency is split depending on the matching generator-level object. For reinterpretation purposes, this efficiency can directly be applied to any AK8 jet that is matched to a given type of generator-level object, with no prior selection on the jet mass. Other acceptance requirements on jet $\p_{T}$ and $\eta$ should still be applied.

Tagging efficiency for AK8 jets. The efficiency includes the effect of the machine-learning based DeepAK8 tagger, as well as the application of the mass window requirement on the jet. The efficiency is split depending on the matching generator-level object. For reinterpretation purposes, this efficiency can directly be applied to any AK8 jet that is matched to a given type of generator-level object, with no prior selection on the jet mass. Other acceptance requirements on jet $\p_{T}$ and $\eta$ should still be applied.