Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane.

Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the observed limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses obtained by comparing the excluded cross section with theoretical cross sections.

Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the observed limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses obtained by comparing the excluded cross section with $+1\sigma$ theoretical cross sections.

Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the observed limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses obtained by comparing the excluded cross section with $-1\sigma$ theoretical cross sections.

Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the expected limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses obtained by comparing the excluded cross section with theoretical cross sections.

Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the expected limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses corresponding to a $+1\sigma$ variation of the experimental uncertainty.

Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the expected limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses corresponding to a $-1\sigma$ variation of the experimental uncertainty.

Observed excluded region (95\% CL), shown in blue, in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane for a model combining T5tttt, gluino pair production, followed by gluino decay to an on-shell top squark, together with a model for direct top squark pair production. The top squarks decay via the two-body process $\tilde{t}\rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. The neutralino and top squark masses are related by the constraint $m_{\tilde{t}} = m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} + 175$ GeV.

Expected excluded region (95\% CL), shown in blue, in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane for a model combining T5tttt, gluino pair production, followed by gluino decay to an on-shell top squark, together with a model for direct top squark pair production. The top squarks decay via the two-body process $\tilde{t}\rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. The neutralino and top squark masses are related by the constraint $m_{\tilde{t}} = m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} + 175$ GeV.

95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section $\sigma(pp\to N_\mu)$ and the branching ratio $B(N_\mu\to \mu q\bar{q}^{\prime})$ in electron channel, compared with theoretical predictions for HCMN model calculated with CalcHEP.

The 95% CL exclusion curve in the parameters' space, obtained in the analysis of the electron channel.

The 95% CL exclusion curve in the parameters' space, obtained in the analysis of the muon channel.

The $p_T ^{miss}$ distributions for muon channel comparing the data and background model with systematic uncertainty.

The $m_T$ distributions for electron channel comparing the data and background model with systematic uncertainty, after fitting the background-only model to the data.

The $m_T$ distributions for muon channel comparing the data and background model with systematic uncertainty, after fitting the background-only model to the data.

Expected and observed limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction of a new spin-2 heavy resonance X$\rightarrow$ZZ, assuming zero width, based on the combined analysis of the electron and muon channels.

Expected and observed limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction of a new spin-2 heavy resonance X$\rightarrow$ZZ, assuming zero width, based on the combined analysis of the electron channels.

Expected and observed limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction of a new spin-2 heavy resonance X$\rightarrow$ZZ, assuming zero width, based on the combined analysis of the muon channels.

Expected and observed limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction of a new spin-2 heavy resonance X$\rightarrow$ZZ based on a combined analysis of the electron and muon channels. The more generic version of the bulk graviton model takes 0/10%/20%/30% mass width of the resonance into consideration, assuming gluon-gluon fusion production.

Expected and observed limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction of a new spin-2 heavy resonance X$\rightarrow$ZZ based on a combined analysis of the electron and muon channels. The more generic version of the bulk graviton model takes 0/10%/20%/30% mass width of the resonance into consideration, assuming qq annihilation production.

The mjj distribution in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria in the e+e- channel. The various signal hypotheses displayed have been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The mjj distribution in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria in the e^{+/-}mu^{-/+} channel. The various signal hypotheses displayed have been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The mjj distribution in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria in the mu+mu- channel. The various signal hypotheses displayed have been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria, in the e+e− channel. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised resonant DNN output is evaluated at mX=400GeV. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria, in the e+e− channel. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised nonresonant DNN output is evaluated at \kappa_\lambda=1, \kappa_t=1. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria, in the e^{+/-}mu^{-/+} channel. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised resonant DNN output is evaluated at mX=400GeV. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria, in the e^{+/-}mu^{-/+} channel. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised nonresonant DNN output is evaluated at \kappa_\lambda=1, \kappa_t=1. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria, in the mu+mu− channel. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised resonant DNN output is evaluated at mX=400GeV. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria, in the mu+mu− channel. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised nonresonant DNN output is evaluated at \kappa_\lambda=1, \kappa_t=1. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events, for the e+e- channel, in three different mjj regions. The parameterised resonant DNN output is evaluated at mX=400GeV. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events, for the e+e- channel, in three different mjj regions. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised nonresonant DNN output is evaluated at \kappa_\lambda=1, \kappa_t=1. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events, for the e^{+/-}mu^{-/+} channel, in three different mjj regions. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised resonant DNN output is evaluated at mX=400GeV. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events, for the e^{+/-}mu^{-/+} channel, in three different mjj regions. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised nonresonant DNN output is evaluated at \kappa_\lambda=1, \kappa_t=1. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events, for the mu+mu- channel, in three different mjj regions. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised resonant DNN output is evaluated at mX=400GeV. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events, for the mu+mu- channel, in three different mjj regions. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised nonresonant DNN output is evaluated at \kappa_\lambda=1, \kappa_t=1. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for X and branching fraction for X -> HH -> bbVV -> bblnulnu, as a function of mX. These limits are computed using the asymptotic CLs method, combining all channels, for the spin-0 hypothesis.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for X and branching fraction for X -> HH -> bbVV -> bblnulnu, as a function of mX. These limits are computed using the asymptotic CLs method, combining all channels, for the spin-2 hypothesis.

expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the Higgs boson pair production cross section and branching fraction for HH -> bbVV -> bblnulnu as a function of kappa_top/kappa_lambda.

Exclusions in the (\kappa_top, \kappa_\lambda) plane. Parameters excluded at 95% CL with the observed data, and expected exclusions and the 68 and 95% bands.

Figure 8. Gluino pair production cross section.

Table 1. Post-fit yields for the background-only fit, observed data, and expected yields for mgluino = 1600 GeV in each search bin.

The observed upper limit on the cross section times branching fraction at 95% CL for direct top squark pair production with decay $\widetilde{t}\widetilde{t} \rightarrow t \widetilde{\chi_1^0} t \widetilde{\chi_1^0}$.

The observed exclusion limits at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction for direct top squark pair production with decay $\widetilde{t}\widetilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi_1^{+} \bar{b} \chi+1^{-}$, $\chi_1^{\pm}\rightarrow W^{\pm} \widetilde{\chi_1^{0}}$

The observed upper limit on the cross section times branching fraction at 95% CL for direct top squark pair production with decay $\widetilde{t}\widetilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi_1^{+} \bar{b} \chi+1^{-}$, $\chi_1^{\pm}\rightarrow W^{\pm} \widetilde{\chi_1^{0}}$

The observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for direct top squark pair production with decay $\widetilde{t}\widetilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi_1^{+} \bar{t} \widetilde{\chi_1^0}$, $\chi_1^{\pm}\rightarrow W^{\pm} \widetilde{\chi_1^{0}}$ assuming a 50% branching fraction for each $\widetilde{t}$ decay.

The observed upper limit on the cross section at 95% CL for direct top squark pair production with decay $\widetilde{t}\widetilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi_1^{+} \bar{t} \widetilde{\chi_1^0}$, $\chi_1^{\pm}\rightarrow W^{\pm} \widetilde{\chi_1^{0}}$ assuming a 50% branching fraction for each $\widetilde{t}$ decay.

Correlation matrix for the background predictions for the signal regions for the standard selection. The labelling of the regions follows the convention of Fig.~4 in the paper.

Correlation matrix for the background predictions for the signal regions for the compressed selection. The labelling of the regions follows the convention of Fig.~4 in the paper.

Figure 2. -1 sigma excluded gluino and neutralino masses at 95% CL for the T1tttt.

Figure 2. Expected exclusion for the T1tttt model.

Figure 2. +1 sigma expected exclusion for the T1tttt model.

Figure 2. -1 sigma expected exclusion for the T1tttt model.

Figure 2. Excluded gluino and neutralino masses at 95% CL for the T5tttt.

Figure 2. Expected exclusion for the T5tttt model.

Table 1. Observed event yields and mean background yields from the predictive fit in the 18 bins of the signal region R4.

Table 2. Observed event yields and mean background yields from the predictive fit in four aggregate search bins.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on $\mathcal{B}_{sig}=\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{b}\mathrm{H^{+}})\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H^{+}}\to\mathrm{W^{+}}\mathrm{A})\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{A}\to\mu^{+}\mu^{-})$ for the A boson masses ($\mathit{m}_{\mathrm{A}}$). The $\mathrm{H^{+}}$ boson mass is assumed to be 160 GeV in the calculation.

The rho distributions for the mixed-flavour category events corresponding to a signal hypothesis with mH = 261 GeV and mA = 150 GeV.

The rho distributions for the same-flavour category events corresponding to a signal hypothesis with mH = 442 GeV and mA = 193 GeV. The signal is normalised to its theoretical cross section.

The rho distributions for the mixed-flavour category events corresponding to a signal hypothesis with mH = 442 GeV and mA = 193 GeV.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction for H(A) -> ZA(H) -> bbbar as a function of mA and mH. The limits are computed using the asymptotic CLs method, combining the ee and μμ channels.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength for the Type-II 2HDM benchmark (tan(beta)=1.5, cos(beta-alpha)=0.01) as a function of mA and mH . The limits are computed using the asymptotic CLs method, combining the ee and μμ channels.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength for the Type-II 2HDM benchmark (mH = 379 GeV and m A = 172 GeV) as a function of tan(beta) and cos(beta-alpha). The limits are computed using the asymptotic CLs method, combining the ee and μμ channels.

P-value for H(A) -> ZA(H) -> bbbar production as a function of mA and mH. The limits are computed using the asymptotic CLs method, combining the ee and μμ channels.

Observed yields and pre-fit background predictions for Njets 8-9.

Observed yields and pre-fit background predictions for Njets >=10.

Observed yields and pre-fit background predictions for aggregated bins.

Pre-fit background covariance matrix $\sigma_{xy}$ for the 174 analysis bins.

Pre-fit background correlation matrix $\rho_{xy}$ for the 174 analysis bins.

Observed yields and post-fit background predictions for Njets 2-3.

Observed yields and post-fit background predictions for Njets 4-5.

Observed yields and post-fit background predictions for Njets 6-7.

Observed yields and post-fit background predictions for Njets 8-9.

Observed yields and post-fit background predictions for Njets >=10.

Simulated signal yields for representative gluino signal model light-LSP points in the aggregate search regions. The uncertainties shown are statistical.

Simulated signal yields for representative gluino signal model compressed points in the aggregate search regions. The uncertainties shown are statistical.

Simulated signal yields for representative squark signal model light-LSP points in the aggregate search regions. The uncertainties shown are statistical.

Simulated signal yields for representative squark signal model compressed points in the aggregate search regions. The uncertainties shown are statistical.

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the production cross sections of the T1tttt signal model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

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

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the production cross sections of the T1bbbb signal model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

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

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the production cross sections of the T1qqqq signal model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

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

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the production cross sections of the T5qqqqVV signal model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

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

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the production cross sections of the T2tt signal model as a function of the top squark and LSP masses.

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

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the production cross sections of the T2bb signal model as a function of the bottom squark and LSP masses.

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

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the production cross sections of the T2qq signal model as a function of the LSP and light squark masses.

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections (u d s c)

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections (u d s c)

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections (u d s c)

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections (u d s c)

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections (u d s c)

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections (u d s c)

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections (u d s c)

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections (single flavor)

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections (single flavor)

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections (single flavor)

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections (single flavor)

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections (single flavor)

The observed significance of the SMS models for T1tttt as function of the gluino and LSP masses.

The observed significance of the SMS models for T1bbbb as function of the gluino and LSP masses.

The observed significance of the SMS models for T1qqqq as function of the gluino and LSP masses.

The observed significance of the SMS models for T5qqqqVV as function of the gluino and LSP masses.

The observed significance of the SMS models for T2tt as function of the top squark and LSP masses.

The observed significance of the SMS models for T2bb as function of the bottom squark and LSP masses.

The observed significance of the SMS models for T2qq as function of the LSP and light squark masses.

The efficiency times acceptance of the SMS models for T1tttt as function of the gluino and LSP masses. The efficiency times acceptance is given for the total signal across the set of 174 search regions.

The efficiency times acceptance of the SMS models for T1bbbb as function of the gluino and LSP masses. The efficiency times acceptance is given for the total signal across the set of 174 search regions.

The efficiency times acceptance of the SMS models for T1qqqq as function of the gluino and LSP masses. The efficiency times acceptance is given for the total signal across the set of 174 search regions.

The efficiency times acceptance of the SMS models for T5qqqqVV as function of the gluino and LSP masses. The efficiency times acceptance is given for the total signal across the set of 174 search regions.

The efficiency times acceptance of the SMS models for T2tt as function of the top squark and LSP masses. The efficiency times acceptance is given for the total signal across the set of 174 search regions.

The efficiency times acceptance of the SMS models for T2bb as function of the bottom squark and LSP masses. The efficiency times acceptance is given for the total signal across the set of 174 search regions.

The efficiency times acceptance of the SMS models for T2qq as function of the LSP and light squark masses. The efficiency times acceptance is given for the total signal across the set of 174 search regions.

Absolute cumulative efficiencies in percent for each step of the event selection process, listed for four representative gluino pair production signal models with m(gluino) >> m(LSP). Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Absolute cumulative efficiencies in percent for each step of the event selection process, listed for four representative gluino pair production signal models with m(gluino) ~ m(LSP). Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Absolute cumulative efficiencies in percent for each step of the event selection process, listed for three representative squark pair production signal models with m(squark) >> m(LSP). Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Absolute cumulative efficiencies in percent for each step of the event selection process, listed for three representative squark pair production signal models with m(squark) ~ m(LSP). Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Dilepton exclusion limits at 95% CL on the CI scale (Lambda) for the six CI models considered for the muon channel. The limits are obtained for m > 400(2200) GeV in the case of constructive (destructive) interference.

Combined dilepton 95% CL exclusion limits on the cross section for the left-left constructive CI model. The red curve in the left plot shows the theoretical cross section as a function of the CI Scale Lambda.

Combined dilepton 95% CL exclusion limits on the CI scale (Lambda) for the six different CI models considered. Thelimits are obtained for m > 400(2200) GeV in the case of constructive (destructive) interference.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the UV cutoff for the electron channel with m> 1.8 TeV in the GRW, Hewett, and HLZ conventions for the ADD model. Signal model cross sections are calculated up to leading order and a correction factor of 1.3 is applied.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the UV cutoff for the muon channel with m> 1.8 TeV in the GRW, Hewett, and HLZ conventions for the ADD model. Signal model cross sections are calculated up to leading order and a correction factor of 1.3 is applied.

Combined dilepton 95% CL exclusion limit on the cross section in the GRW convention with m > 1.8 TeV for the ADD model.

Combined dilepton 95% CL exclusion limits on the UV cutoff with m> 1.8 TeV in the GRW, Hewett, and HLZ conventions for the ADD model. Signal model cross sections are calculated up to leading order and a correction factor of 1.3 is applied.

Individual and combined dilepton (this analysis) and diphoton 95% CL expected exclusion limits as a summary of all parameter conventions for the ADD model. Signal model cross sections are calculated up to leading order.

Individual and combined dilepton (this analysis) and diphoton 95% CL observed exclusion limits as a summary of all parameter conventions for the ADD model. Signal model cross sections are calculated up to leading order.

The distributions of likelihood discriminant for data, simulated QCD multijet events, and simulated signal events. Data and simulated events are selected with the displaced-jet trigger. The offline $H_{T}$ is required to be larger than 400 GeV, and the jets are required to have $p_{T}>50\ \mathrm{GeV}$ and $|\eta|<2.0$. Three benchmark signal distributions are shown (dashed lines) for the jet-jet model with $m_{X}=300\ \mathrm{GeV}$ and varying lifetimes. For visualization each signal process is given a cross section, $\sigma$, such that $\sigma\ 35.9 \mathrm{fb}^{-1} = 1 \times 10^{6}$.

Numbers of predicted and observed background events for the nominal background method and the three cross-checks in the control region. Shown are the comparisons for likelihood discriminant thresholds of 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties of the predictions and the observations. The data points at different likelihood discriminant thresholds are correlated, since the events passing higher likelihood discriminant thresholds also pass lower likelihood discriminant thresholds.

Numbers of predicted and observed background events for the nominal background method and the three cross-checks in the control region. Shown are the comparisons for likelihood discriminant thresholds of 0.95, 0.96, 0.97, 0.98, 0.99, and 0.9993. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties of the predictions and the observations. The data points at different likelihood discriminant thresholds are correlated, since the events passing higher likelihood discriminant thresholds also pass lower likelihood discriminant thresholds.

The expected and observed $95\%$ $\text{CL}$ upper limits on the pair production cross section of the long-lived particle X, assuming a $100\%$ branching fraction for X to decay to a quark-antiquark pair, shown at different masses and different proper decay lengths for the jet-jet model.

the expected and observed $95\%$ $\text{CL}$ upper limits on the pair production cross section of the long-lived gluino, assuming a $100\%$ branching fraction for $\widetilde{\mathrm{g}}\to\mathrm{g}\widetilde{\mathrm{G}}$ decays.

the expected and observed $95\%$ $\text{CL}$ limits for the long-lived gluino model in the mass-lifetime plane, assuming a $100\%$ branching fraction for $\widetilde{\mathrm{g}}\to\mathrm{g}\widetilde{\mathrm{G}}$ decays, based on the NLO+NLL calculation of the gluino pair production cross section at $\sqrt{s}=13\ \mathrm{TeV}$.

the expected and observed $95\%$ $\text{CL}$ upper limits on the pair production cross section of the long-lived gluino, assuming a $100\%$ branching fraction for $\widetilde{\mathrm{g}}\to\mathrm{tbs}$ decays.

the expected and observed $95\%$ $\text{CL}$ limits for the long-lived gluino model in the mass-lifetime plane, assuming a $100\%$ branching fraction for $\widetilde{\mathrm{g}}\to\mathrm{tbs}$ decays, based on the NLO+NLL calculation of the gluino pair production cross section at $\sqrt{s}=13\ \mathrm{TeV}$.

the expected and observed $95\%$ $\text{CL}$ upper limits on the pair production cross section of the long-lived top squark, assuming a $100\%$ branching fraction for $\widetilde{\mathrm{t}}\to\mathrm{b}\ell$ decays.

the expected and observed $95\%$ $\text{CL}$ limits for the long-lived top squark model in the mass-lifetime plane, assuming a $100\%$ branching fraction for $\widetilde{\mathrm{t}}\to\mathrm{b}\ell$ decays, based on the NLO+NLL calculation of the top squark pair production cross section at $\sqrt{s}=13\ \mathrm{TeV}$.

the expected and observed $95\%$ $\text{CL}$ upper limits on the the pair production cross section of the long-lived top squark, assuming a $100\%$ branching fraction for $\widetilde{\mathrm{t}}\to\mathrm{\overline{d}\overline{d}}$ decays.

the expected and observed $95\%$ $\text{CL}$ limits for the long-lived top squark model in the mass-lifetime plane, assuming a $100\%$ branching fraction for $\widetilde{\mathrm{t}}\to\mathrm{\overline{d}\overline{d}}$ decays, based on an NLO+NLL calculation of the top squark pair production cross section at $\sqrt{s}=13\ \mathrm{TeV}$.

The likelihood ratio for vertex track multiplicity

The likelihood ratio for vertex $L_{xy}$ significance

The likelihood ratio for cluster RMS, the point where cluster RMS equals $-1.0$ represents the case where there is no cluster being reconstructed for the dijet candidate

The $m_{e\mu}$ distribution of the observed data is shown, with the $S+B$ fit at $m_{X}=146\mathrm{GeV}$ in red solid line, and the background component of the fit in red dotted line. Events and fit in each category are weighted by $S/(S+B)$. The one and two standard deviation uncertainty bands of the background component are shown in green and yellow. The lower panel shows the residuals after subtracting the background component of the fit from data.

Observed (expected) 95% confidence level upper limits on $\sigma(p p \to X(146) \to e \mu)$ for each individual analysis category (as shown in the left axis label) and for the combination of all analysis categories assuming the relative SM-like production cross sections of the ggH and VBF production modes.

The $m_{e\mu}$ distribution of the observed data in the category ggH cat 0 is shown, with the $S+B$ fit at $m_{X}=146\mathrm{GeV}$ in solid red line, and the background component of the fit in dotted red line. The green and yellow bands represent the one and two standard deviations of the background component. The lower panel shows the residuals after subtracting the background component of the fit from data.

The $m_{e\mu}$ distribution of the observed data in the category ggH cat 1 is shown, with the $S+B$ fit at $m_{X}=146\mathrm{GeV}$ in solid red line, and the background component of the fit in dotted red line. The green and yellow bands represent the one and two standard deviations of the background component. The lower panel shows the residuals after subtracting the background component of the fit from data.

The $m_{e\mu}$ distribution of the observed data in the category ggH cat 2 is shown, with the $S+B$ fit at $m_{X}=146\mathrm{GeV}$ in solid red line, and the background component of the fit in dotted red line. The green and yellow bands represent the one and two standard deviations of the background component. The lower panel shows the residuals after subtracting the background component of the fit from data.

The $m_{e\mu}$ distribution of the observed data in the category ggH cat 3 is shown, with the $S+B$ fit at $m_{X}=146\mathrm{GeV}$ in solid red line, and the background component of the fit in dotted red line. The green and yellow bands represent the one and two standard deviations of the background component. The lower panel shows the residuals after subtracting the background component of the fit from data.

The $m_{e\mu}$ distribution of the observed data in the category VBF cat 0 is shown, with the $S+B$ fit at $m_{X}=146\mathrm{GeV}$ in solid red line, and the background component of the fit in dotted red line. The green and yellow bands represent the one and two standard deviations of the background component. The lower panel shows the residuals after subtracting the background component of the fit from data.

The $m_{e\mu}$ distribution of the observed data in the category VBF cat 1 is shown, with the $S+B$ fit at $m_{X}=146\mathrm{GeV}$ in solid red line, and the background component of the fit in dotted red line. The green and yellow bands represent the one and two standard deviations of the background component. The lower panel shows the residuals after subtracting the background component of the fit from data.

Best fit of $\sigma(p p \to X(146) \to e \mu)$ for each analysis category (black point) compared to the best fit for the combination of all analysis categories (blue line). The one standard deviation uncertainty of the per-category best fit is shown in red line and the one standard deviation uncertainty of the combined best fit is shown in green band.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.0.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.1.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.2.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.3.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.4.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.5.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.6.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.7.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.8.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 0.9.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ggH,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ and $\sigma_{VBF,f_{VBF}}(p p \to X \to e \mu)$ with $f_{VBF}$ = 1.0.

The geometric acceptance multiplied by the efficiency of the $\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} >$ 200 GeV selection as a function of the proper decay length c$\tau$ for a scalar particle S with a mass of 40 GeV. The acceptance region for DT is defined by requiring the LLP to decay in the region with |z| < 661 cm and 380 cm < r < 736 cm. The acceptance region for CSC is defined by requiring the LLP decay in the region with $|\eta| < 2.4$, r < 695.5 cm, and 661 cm < |z| < 1100 cm or in the region with $|\eta| < 2.4$, r < 270 cm, and 500 cm < |z| < 661 cm. Single CSC cluster requires exactly one LLP to decay in CSC; Single DT cluster requires exactly one LLP to decay in DT; Double cluster requires both LLP to decay in CSC or DT. The denominator in this plot includes all generated events. The nominator includes events that pass the acceptance requirements above and $\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} >$ 200 GeV.

Distributions of the cluster time for signal, where S decaying to $d\bar{d}$ for a proper decay length c$\tau$ of 1 m and mass of 40 GeV, and for a background-enriched sample in data selected by inverting the $N_\text{hits}$ requirement.

The distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m).

The distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for compared to the OOT background ($t_\text{clusters} < 12.5$ ns). The OOT background is representative of the overall background shape, because the background passing all the selections described above is dominated by pileup and underlying events.

The distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), compared to the shape of background in a selection in which the cluster is not matched to any RPC hit and passes all other selections. The background is dominated by clusters from noise and low-pT particles.

The distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), compared to the shape of background in a selection in which the cluster is not matched to any RPC hit and passes all other selections. The background is dominated by clusters from noise and low-pT particles.

The distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), compared to the shape of background in a selection in which the cluster is not matched to any RPC hit and passes all other selections. The background is dominated by clusters from noise and low-pT particles.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{clusters}$ passing the $N_\text{hits}$ selection in the search region for CSC-CSC category.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{clusters}$ passing the $N_\text{hits}$ selection in the search region for DT-DT category.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{clusters}$ passing the $N_\text{hits}$ selection in the search region for DT-CSC category.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ in the search region of the single-CSC cluster category are shown. The $N_\text{hits}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and D. The right-hand bin in the Nhits distribution includes overflow events.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ in the search region of the single-CSC cluster category are shown. The $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and B.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ in the search region of the single-DT cluster category are shown. The $N_\text{hits}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and D. The right-hand bin in the Nhits distribution includes overflow events.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ in the search region of the single-DT cluster category are shown. The $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and B.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 3 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 7 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{0} \pi^{0}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{0} \pi^{0}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 7 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1.5 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow K^{+}K^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1.5 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow K^{0}K^{0}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \e^{+} \e^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 4 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 4 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 4 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}^{Z\gamma}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}^{Z\gamma}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $\delta c_{Z}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $\delta c_{Z}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $c_{Z\Box}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $c_{Z\Box}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $c_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $c_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $\tilde{c}_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $\tilde{c}_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}^{ggH}$. The signal strength modifiers and the CP-odd HVV anomalous coupling cross section fraction are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}^{ggH}$. The signal strength modifiers and the CP-odd HVV anomalous coupling cross section fraction are treated as free parameters.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 5-jet bHbH channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 5-jet bHbZ channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 5-jet bZbZ channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 5-jet bHtW channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 5-jet bZtW channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 6-jet bHbH channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 6-jet bHbZ channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 6-jet bZbZ channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 6-jet bHtW channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the hadronic 6-jet bZtW channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the semileptonic 3-jet bHbZ channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the semileptonic 3-jet bZbZ channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the semileptonic 4-jet bHbZ channel.

Distributions of reconstructed VLQ mass for expected postfit background (blue histogram), signal plus background (colored lines), and observed data (black points) for events in the semileptonic 4-jet bZbZ channel.

The limit at 95% CL on the cross section for VLQ pair production for the branching fraction hypothesis 0% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$, 100% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$, and 0% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$

The limit at 95% CL on the cross section for VLQ pair production for the branching fraction hypothesis 25% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$, 25% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$, and 50% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$

The limit at 95% CL on the cross section for VLQ pair production for the branching fraction hypothesis 50% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$, 50% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$, and 0% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$

The limit at 95% CL on the cross section for VLQ pair production for the branching fraction hypothesis 100% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$, 0% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$, and 0% $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$

Median expected exclusion limits on the VLQ mass at 95% CL as a function of the branching fractions $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$ and $\mathcal{B}(B \to tW)$, with $\mathcal{B}(B \to tW) = 1 - \mathcal{B}(B \to bH) - \mathcal{B}(B \to bZ)$. The grey area corresponds to the region where the exclusion limit is less than 1000 GeV.

Median observed exclusion limits on the VLQ mass at 95% CL as a function of the branching fractions $\mathcal{B}(B \to bH)$ and $\mathcal{B}(B \to tW)$, with $\mathcal{B}(B \to tW) = 1 - \mathcal{B}(B \to bH) - \mathcal{B}(B \to bZ)$. The grey area corresponds to the region where the exclusion limit is less than 1000 GeV.

Post-fit distributon of BDT discriminants for $\rho_{tc}=1.0$ with $m_A$ = 350 GeV interfered with H.($m_A - m_H$ = 50 GeV)

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ for the g2HDM signal model using different coupling assumptions: $\rho_{tu}$ = 0.1, 0.4, 1.0.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ for the g2HDM signal model using different coupling assumptions: $\rho_{tc}$ = 0.1, 0.4, 1.0.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ for the g2HDM signal model using different coupling assumptions: $\rho_{tu}$ = 0.1, 0.4, 1.0 with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ for the g2HDM signal model using different coupling assumptions: $\rho_{tc}$ = 0.1, 0.4, 1.0 with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model.

Expected exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model

Observed exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model.

Expected exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model

Observed exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV.

Expected exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV

Observed exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV.

Expected exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV

Observed exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV

Example description

Example description

Example description

Correlation matrix for the differential branching fraction extraction between different $q^2$ bins in the simultaneous fit.

The product of acceptance and efficiency ($A\epsilon$) of the $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{B}^+\to\mathrm{K}^+\mu^+\mu^-)$ channel, as a function of the muon pair $q^2$, as measured in simulated signal events, after all the corrections applied. In the figure, regions corresponding to resonances are displayed with red markers.

Same as Table 5, but for the bins containing the J$\psi$ and $\psi$(2S) resonances.

Integrated branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{B}^\pm \to \mathrm{K}^\pm\mu^+\mu^-)$ in the low-$q^2$ region.

Ratio of branching fractions $\mathcal{B}(\text{B}^\pm \to \text{K}^\pm\mu^+\mu^-)$ to $\mathcal{B}(\text{B}^\pm \to \text{K}^\pm\text{e}^+\text{e}^-)$, determined from the measured double ratio $R$(K) of these decays to the respective branching fractions of the decay chains $\text{B}^\pm\to\text{J/}\psi\text{K}^\pm$ with $\text{J/}\psi\to\mu^+\mu^-$ and $\text{e}^+\text{e}^-$.

Negative log likelihood function from the fit profiled as a function of the inverse ratio $R(\mathrm{K})^{-1}$.

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.

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.

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.