The model-independent 95\% \CL expected and observed upper limits set on ${\sigma(\PP\to 2\Pa+\PX)\mathcal{B}^2(\Pa\to 2\PGm)\alphaGen}$ over the range $0.21 < \MPa < 9\GeV$ for the combined 2016, 2017, and 2018 analyses. Mass ranges that overlap with \JPsi and \PgU resonances are excluded from the search

The 95\% \CL observed upper limits on the effective coupling $\CahLambda$ of the ALP to the SM Higgs assuming the branching fraction of the ALP to muons is 1 (blue) and 0.1 (orange), for both the expected (dashed) and observed (solid) limits

The 95\% \CL observed upper limits on the effective coupling $\cll/\Lambda$ of the ALP to the SM leptons. The orange shaded region represents the parameter space excluded by this search under three choices of $\CahLambda$ $1\TeV^{-2}$ (solid), $0.1\TeV^{-2}$ (dashed), and $0.01\TeV^{-2}$ (dotted)

The 95\% \CL observed upper limits on $\varepsilon^{2} \mathcal{B}(\ZDark \to \sDark \overline{\sDark}) \mathcal{B}^{2}(\sDark \rightarrow 2\PGm)$ for the vector portal model as a function of the dark scalar mass $\MsDark$ and dark vector boson mass $\MZDark$. The yellow and green bands indicate one and two standard deviation values of the limit, respectively. Because the model-independent limits are calculated only up to a dimuon mass of 60\GeV, the \sDark mass considered for these limits is below 60\GeV

The 95\% \CL observed upper limits for $\sigma(\PP\to\PhOneTwo\to 2\PaOne) \mathcal{B}^2(\PaOne\to 2\PGm)$ for the NMSSM as a function of $\MPaOne$ for $\MPhOneTwo$ = 90~GEV. The data presented here reflect the results of the 2017 and 2018 datasets combined with the previously published results of the 2016 dataset in \cite{CMS:2018jid}

The 95\% \CL observed upper limits for $\sigma(\PP\to\PhOneTwo\to 2\PaOne) \mathcal{B}^2(\PaOne\to 2\PGm)$ for the NMSSM as a function of $\MPaOne$ for $\MPhOneTwo$ = 125~GEV. The data presented here reflect the results of the 2017 and 2018 datasets combined with the previously published results of the 2016 dataset in \cite{CMS:2018jid}

The 95\% \CL observed upper limits for $\sigma(\PP\to\PhOneTwo\to 2\PaOne) \mathcal{B}^2(\PaOne\to 2\PGm)$ for the NMSSM as a function of $\MPaOne$ for $\MPhOneTwo$ = 150~GEV. The data presented here reflect the results of the 2017 and 2018 datasets combined with the previously published results of the 2016 dataset in \cite{CMS:2018jid}

The 95\% \CL observed upper limits (black solid curves) from this search as interpreted in the dark SUSY scenario for the process $\PP \to \Ph \to 2\nOne \to 2\gammaDark + 2\nDark \to 4\PGm + \PX$, with \mbox{$\MnOne = 60\GeV$} and $\MnDark = 1\GeV$. The limits are presented in the plane of $\varepsilon$ and $\MgammaDark$. The color gradient represents different branching fraction assumptions for \mbox{$\mathcal{B}(\Ph \to 2\nOne \to 2\gammaDark + 2\nDark)$}, ranging from dark orange (0.05\%) to light orange (10\%). The degradation of the limit around 1\GeV is attributed to the drop in the dimuon branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\gammaDark \to 2\mu)$ due to the dimuon resonance of the $\phi$ meson~\cite{Batell:2009yf}

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet no-btag category with the BDT requirements selecting the most signal-like events. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet no-btag category with the BDT requirements selecting the most signal-like events. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet no-btag category with the BDT requirements selecting the most signal-like events. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 1.5$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 1.5$.

Expected upper limit at 95% CL on the coupling strength $\lambda$ of a scalar LQ to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Expected upper limit at 95% CL on the coupling strength $\lambda$ of a scalar LQ to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet btag category with the intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet no-btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet no-btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet no-btag category with low BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet no-btag category with low BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet no-btag category with low BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet no-btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet no-btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 1.0$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 2.0$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 3.0$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 0.5$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 1.0$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 2.0$.

Observed and expected distributions of the jet multiplicity in the e+jet btag control region.

Observed and expected distributions of the jet multiplicity in the $\mu$+jet btag control region.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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 $g_{q}$ 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 $g_{q}$ 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 pseudoscalar couplings.

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.

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 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.