The measured differential branching fractions as a function of the invariant hadronic mass squared of the $X_u$ system ($M_X^2$).

The measured differential branching fractions as a function of the light-cone momenta of the hadronic $X_u$ system [$P_+ = (E_X^B - |old{p}_X^B|)$].

The measured differential branching fractions as a function of the light-cone momenta of the hadronic $X_u$ system [$P_- = (E_X^B + |old{p}_X^B|)$].

The background-subtracted yields as a function of $E_\ell^B$.

The background-subtracted yields as a function of $q^2$.

The background-subtracted yields as a function of $M_X$.

The background-subtracted yields as a function of $M_X^2$.

The background-subtracted yields as a function of $P_+$. [$P_+ = (E_X^B - |P_X^B|)$]

The background-subtracted yields as a function of $P_-$. [$P_- = (E_X^B + |P_X^B|)$].

The full experimental correlation matrix for the background-subtracted spectrum of the lepton energy in the $B$ rest frame ($E_\ell^B$).

The full experimental correlation matrix for the background-subtracted spectrum of $q^2$).

The full experimental correlation matrix for the background-subtracted spectrum of $M_X$.

The full experimental correlation matrix for the background-subtracted spectrum of $M_X^2$.

The full experimental correlation matrix for the background-subtracted spectrum of $P_+$.

The full experimental correlation matrix for the background-subtracted spectrum of $P_-$.

Migration matrix of $E_\ell^B$ [in %].

Migration matrix of $q^2$ [in %].

Migration matrix of $M_X$ [in %].

Migration matrix of $M_X^2$ [in %].

Migration matrix of $P_+$ [in %].

Migration matrix of $P_-$ [in %].

The total correction factors and phase space acceptance as a function of the invariant hadronic mass of the $X_u$ system ($M_X$).

The total correction factors and phase space acceptance as a function of the invariant hadronic mass squared of the $X_u$ system ($M_X^2$).

The total correction factors and phase space acceptance as a function of the lepton energy in the $B$ rest frame ($E_\ell^B$).

The total correction factors and phase space acceptance as a function of the four-momentum-transfer squared of the $B$ to the $X_u$ system ($q^2$).

The total correction factors and phase space acceptance as a function of $P_+$.

The total correction factors and phase space acceptance as a function of $P_-$.

The statistical correlations of the differential branching fractions are shown. The matrix elements are ordered for $M_{X}$, $M_{X}^{2}$, $q^{2}$, $E_{\ell}^{B}$, $P_{+}$ and $P_{-}$.

The full experimental (statistical and systematical) correlations of the differential branching fractions are shown. The matrix elements are ordered for $M_{X}$, $M_{X}^{2}$, $q^{2}$, $E_{\ell}^{B}$, $P_{+}$ and $P_{-}$.

The total partial branching fraction with $E_{\ell}^{B} > 1$ GeV. The order of entries is: the 2D fit result of Phys. Rev. D 104, 012008 (2021), the results calcuated with the differential branching fractions of $M_{X}$, $M_{X}^{2}$, $q^{2}$, $E_{\ell}^{B}$, $P_{+}$ and $P_{-}$

The full experimental correlations between the total partial branching fractions from summing the individual bins are shown. The matrix elements are saved in the order of $M_{X}$, $M_{X}^{2}$, $q^{2}$, $E_{\ell}^{B}$, $P_{+}$ and $P_{-}$.

The first moment of the measured differential branching fraction of the lepton energy in the $B$ rest frame ($E_\ell^B$).

The second moment of the measured differential branching fraction of the lepton energy in the $B$ rest frame ($E_\ell^B$).

The third moment of the measured differential branching fraction of the lepton energy in the $B$ rest frame ($E_\ell^B$).

The first moment of the measured differential branching fraction of $q^2$.

The second moment of the measured differential branching fraction of $q^2$.

The third moment of the measured differential branching fraction of $q^2$.

The first moment of the measured differential branching fraction of $M_{X}$.

The second moment of the measured differential branching fraction of $M_{X}$.

The third moment of the measured differential branching fraction of $M_{X}$.

The first moment of the measured differential branching fraction of $P_{+}$.

The second moment of the measured differential branching fraction of $P_{+}$.

The third moment of the measured differential branching fraction of $P_{+}$.

The first moment of the measured differential branching fraction of $P_{-}$.

The second moment of the measured differential branching fraction of $P_{-}$.

The third moment of the measured differential branching fraction of $P_{-}$.

The matrix elements are saved in the order of $M_{X}$, $q^{2}$, $E_{\ell}^{B}$, $P_{+}$ and $P_{-}$. For each variable, the entries is ordered for the first, second and third moments.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with scalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with pseudoscalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the fundamental Planck scale $M_{D}$ as a function of the number of extra dimensions $d$.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Tagging efficiency for AK8 jets. The efficiency includes the effect of the machine-learning based DeepAK8 tagger, as well as the application of the mass window requirement on the jet. The efficiency is split depending on the matching generator-level object. For reinterpretation purposes, this efficiency can directly be applied to any AK8 jet that is matched to a given type of generator-level object, with no prior selection on the jet mass. Other acceptance requirements on jet $\p_{T}$ and $\eta$ should still be applied.

This table contains thinned out samples of the Markov chains used in the parameter estimation of the SDME measurements for $-(t-t_\text{0}) = 0.400\pm0.056~\text{GeV}^2/c^2$, reported in the main article. One in about 250 steps in the chain, which results in 200 different sets of SDMEs, is provided. These values should be used instead of bootstrapping of the results, in order to estimate uncertainties of physics models fitted to this data. To assess how the uncertainties propagate to the model uncertainties, one should evaluate the model under scrutiny for each of the 200 different sets of SDMEs. Plotting all resulting lines in a single plot will create bands which reflect the influence of the uncertainties in the data on the model. This method has the great advantage that all correlations are accurately taken into account.

This table contains thinned out samples of the Markov chains used in the parameter estimation of the SDME measurements for $-(t-t_\text{0}) = 0.597\pm0.057~\text{GeV}^2/c^2$, reported in the main article. One in about 250 steps in the chain, which results in 200 different sets of SDMEs, is provided. These values should be used instead of bootstrapping of the results, in order to estimate uncertainties of physics models fitted to this data. To assess how the uncertainties propagate to the model uncertainties, one should evaluate the model under scrutiny for each of the 200 different sets of SDMEs. Plotting all resulting lines in a single plot will create bands which reflect the influence of the uncertainties in the data on the model. This method has the great advantage that all correlations are accurately taken into account.

This table contains thinned out samples of the Markov chains used in the parameter estimation of the SDME measurements for $-(t-t_\text{0}) = 0.793\pm0.057~\text{GeV}^2/c^2$, reported in the main article. One in about 250 steps in the chain, which results in 200 different sets of SDMEs, is provided. These values should be used instead of bootstrapping of the results, in order to estimate uncertainties of physics models fitted to this data. To assess how the uncertainties propagate to the model uncertainties, one should evaluate the model under scrutiny for each of the 200 different sets of SDMEs. Plotting all resulting lines in a single plot will create bands which reflect the influence of the uncertainties in the data on the model. This method has the great advantage that all correlations are accurately taken into account.

This table contains thinned out samples of the Markov chains used in the parameter estimation of the SDME measurements for $-(t-t_\text{0}) = 0.992\pm0.058~\text{GeV}^2/c^2$, reported in the main article. One in about 250 steps in the chain, which results in 200 different sets of SDMEs, is provided. These values should be used instead of bootstrapping of the results, in order to estimate uncertainties of physics models fitted to this data. To assess how the uncertainties propagate to the model uncertainties, one should evaluate the model under scrutiny for each of the 200 different sets of SDMEs. Plotting all resulting lines in a single plot will create bands which reflect the influence of the uncertainties in the data on the model. This method has the great advantage that all correlations are accurately taken into account.

This table contains thinned out samples of the Markov chains used in the parameter estimation of the SDME measurements for $-(t-t_\text{0}) = 1.189\pm0.058~\text{GeV}^2/c^2$, reported in the main article. One in about 250 steps in the chain, which results in 200 different sets of SDMEs, is provided. These values should be used instead of bootstrapping of the results, in order to estimate uncertainties of physics models fitted to this data. To assess how the uncertainties propagate to the model uncertainties, one should evaluate the model under scrutiny for each of the 200 different sets of SDMEs. Plotting all resulting lines in a single plot will create bands which reflect the influence of the uncertainties in the data on the model. This method has the great advantage that all correlations are accurately taken into account.

This table contains thinned out samples of the Markov chains used in the parameter estimation of the SDME measurements for $-(t-t_\text{0}) = 1.435\pm0.086~\text{GeV}^2/c^2$, reported in the main article. One in about 250 steps in the chain, which results in 200 different sets of SDMEs, is provided. These values should be used instead of bootstrapping of the results, in order to estimate uncertainties of physics models fitted to this data. To assess how the uncertainties propagate to the model uncertainties, one should evaluate the model under scrutiny for each of the 200 different sets of SDMEs. Plotting all resulting lines in a single plot will create bands which reflect the influence of the uncertainties in the data on the model. This method has the great advantage that all correlations are accurately taken into account.

This table contains thinned out samples of the Markov chains used in the parameter estimation of the SDME measurements for $-(t-t_\text{0}) = 1.761\pm0.111~\text{GeV}^2/c^2$, reported in the main article. One in about 250 steps in the chain, which results in 200 different sets of SDMEs, is provided. These values should be used instead of bootstrapping of the results, in order to estimate uncertainties of physics models fitted to this data. To assess how the uncertainties propagate to the model uncertainties, one should evaluate the model under scrutiny for each of the 200 different sets of SDMEs. Plotting all resulting lines in a single plot will create bands which reflect the influence of the uncertainties in the data on the model. This method has the great advantage that all correlations are accurately taken into account.

The correlation matrix for the Higgs pT measurements, both for the unregularized and regularized fits. The last bin is inclusive.

The correlation matrix for the jet multiplicity measurements, both for the unregularized and regularized fits. The last bin is inclusive.

The correlation matrix for the leading jet pT measurements, both for the unregularized and regularized fits. The last bin is inclusive.

The fiducial integrated signal strength and cross section.

Differential cross section as a function of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.

Differential cross section as a function of $p_{T,\gamma\gamma}$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.

Differential cross section as a function of $a_{T,\gamma\gamma}$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.

Differential cross section as a function of $\phi_{\eta}*$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.

Differential cross section as a function of $\pi-\Delta\phi_{\gamma\gamma}$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.

Differential cross section as a function of $|cos\theta*|^{(CS)}$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$v_2$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$v_2$ vs $p_T$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$v_2$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$v_2$ ratio vs $p_T$, p/d/3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$c_2$ vs $\eta$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_2$ vs $\eta$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_2$ vs $\eta$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_3$ vs $\eta$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_3$ vs $\eta$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_3$ vs $\eta$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, BBCS-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, BBCS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, FVTXS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, CNT-BBCS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-BBCS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-BBCS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-BBCS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, CNT-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, CNT-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXN correlation

$c_n$ vs detector combination, p+p at 200 GeV, Minimum Bias

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+p at 200 GeV, Minimum Bias, BBCS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+p at 200 GeV, Minimum Bias, FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+p at 200 GeV, Minimum Bias, FVTXN-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs detector combination, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXN-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs detector combination, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXN-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs detector combination, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXN-CNT detector combination

95% CL exclusion limits on $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow b\bar{b}b\bar{b})$ for $m_a = 45$ GeV.

95% CL exclusion limits on $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow b\bar{b}b\bar{b})$ for $m_a = 55$ GeV.

The fraction of $a$ boson decays matched to reconstructed displaced vertices passing all vertex selections in signal MC.

The extrapolated signal selection efficiency as a function of $c\tau_{a}$.

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 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 cluster efficiency in bins of hadronic and EM energy in region A. Region A is defined as 391 cm $< r <$ 695.5 cm and 400 cm $< |z| <$ 671 cm. The cluster efficiency is estimated with LLPs decaying to $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bins correspond to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. The cluster efficiency includes all cluster-level selections described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta\phi$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $d\bar{d}$ and $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 35% and 20% for region A and B, respectively.

The cluster efficiency in bins of hadronic and EM energy in region B. Region B is defined as 671 cm $< |z| <$ 1100 cm, $r <$ 695.5 cm, and $|\eta| <$ 2. The cluster efficiency is estimated with LLPs decaying to $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bins correspond to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. The cluster efficiency includes all cluster-level selections described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta\phi$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $d\bar{d}$ and $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 35% and 20% for region A and B, respectively.

The efficiency of $N_{station} > 1$ requirement in bins of hadronic energy in region B. Region B is defined as 671 cm $< |z| <$ 1100 cm, $r <$ 695.5 cm, and $|\eta| <$ 2. The cluster efficiency is estimated with LLPs decaying to $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bin corresponds to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. The efficiency is calculated with respect to clusters that pass all cluster-level cuts described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta\phi$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $d\bar{d}$ and $\tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 10%.

The geometric signal acceptance as a function of $c\tau$. The acceptance is shown for four different LLP mass hypotheses: 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV. The acceptance is defined by requiring at least 1 LLP to decay in the region defined as 400 cm $< |z| <$ 1100 cm, $r < $ 695.5 cm, and $|\eta| <$ 2.4.

Two-particle correlations $c_{1}\{2\}$ versus $Q^2$ with a rapidity separation and high-$p_{\textrm{T}}$ constraint: $\Delta \eta > 2$, $p_{\textrm{T}}$ > 0.5 GeV. Photoproduction data are shown at $Q^2$ = 0 GeV$^2$, while NC DIS is for $Q^2$ > 5 GeV$^2$.

Two-particle correlations $c_{2}\{2\}$ versus $Q^2$. Photoproduction data are shown at $Q^2$ = 0 GeV$^2$, while NC DIS is for $Q^2$ > 5 GeV$^2$.

Two-particle correlations $c_{2}\{2\}$ versus $Q^2$ with a rapidity separation: $\Delta \eta > 2$. Photoproduction data are shown at $Q^2$ = 0 GeV$^2$, while NC DIS is for $Q^2$ > 5 GeV$^2$.

Two-particle correlations $c_{2}\{2\}$ versus $Q^2$ with a high-$p_{\textrm{T}}$ constraint: $p_{\textrm{T}}$ > 0.5 GeV. Photoproduction data are shown at $Q^2$ = 0 GeV$^2$, while NC DIS is for $Q^2$ > 5 GeV$^2$.

Two-particle correlations $c_{2}\{2\}$ versus $Q^2$ with a rapidity separation and high-$p_{\textrm{T}}$ constraint: $\Delta \eta > 2$, $p_{\textrm{T}}$ > 0.5 GeV. Photoproduction data are shown at $Q^2$ = 0 GeV$^2$, while NC DIS is for $Q^2$ > 5 GeV$^2$.

Normalised charged-particle multiplicity distribution $dN/dN_{\textrm{ch}}$ in photoproduction.

Normalised charged-particle transverse momentum distribution $dN/dp_{\textrm{T}}$ in photoproduction.

Normalised charged-particle pseudorapidity distribution $dN/d\eta$ in photoproduction.

Two-particle correlations $c_1\{2\}$ versus $|\Delta \eta|$ in photoproduction.

Two-particle correlations $c_2\{2\}$ versus $|\Delta \eta|$ in photoproduction.

Two-particle correlations $c_1\{2\}$ versus $\left< p_{\textrm{T}} \right>$ in photoproduction.

Two-particle correlations $c_2\{2\}$ versus $\left< p_{\textrm{T}} \right>$ in photoproduction.

Four-particle cumulant correlations $c_1\{4\}$ versus $p_{T,1}$ in photoproduction.

Four-particle cumulant correlations $c_2\{4\}$ versus $p_{T,1}$ in photoproduction.

The contribution from different systematic uncertainties to the measured $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ production cross section, grouped in categories.

The results of the fitted signal strength $\mu$ in the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/3L combined channel.

The results of fitted inclusive ${t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$ cross-section in the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/3L combined channel.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the sum of the pseudo-continuous b-tagging score over the six jets with the highest score in the 1L,$\geq$9j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the sum of the pseudo-continuous b-tagging score over the six jets with the highest score in the 1L,$\geq$9j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the sum of the pseudo-continuous b-tagging score over the six jets with the highest score in the 2LOS,$\geq$7j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the sum of the pseudo-continuous b-tagging score over the six jets with the highest score in the 2LOS,$\geq$7j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of number of jets in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of number of jets in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of number of jets in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of number of jets in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of b-jets multiplicity in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of b-jets multiplicity in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of b-jets multiplicity in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of b-jets multiplicity in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,4b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,4b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,$\geq$5b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,$\geq$5b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bL signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bL signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bH signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bH signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,4b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,4b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,$\geq$5b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,$\geq$5b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,7j,$\geq$4b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,7j,$\geq$4b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bL signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bL signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bH signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bH signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,$\geq$4b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,$\geq$4b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,7j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,7j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bL control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bL control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bH control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bH control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,9j,3bL control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,9j,3bL control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,9j,3bH control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,9j,3bH control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,4b control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,4b control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,$\geq$5b control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,$\geq$5b control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bL control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bL control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bH control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bH control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,7j,3bL control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,7j,3bL control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,7j,3bH control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,7j,3bH control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,$\geq$4b control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,$\geq$4b control region after the fit.