95% CL upper limits as a function of (left) cτ_{π_d} and (right) M_φ. The upper plots show the expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) for m_{π_d} = 20 GeV: (a) using M_φ = 1.6 TeV and (b) using cτ_{π_d} = 20 mm. The lower plots show a comparison of the observed limits for all three dark pion masses: (c) using M_φ = 1.4 TeV, and (d) using cτ_{π_d} = 1 mm. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

95% CL upper limits as a function of (left) cτ_{π_d} and (right) M_φ. The upper plots show the expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) for m_{π_d} = 20 GeV: (a) using M_φ = 1.6 TeV and (b) using cτ_{π_d} = 20 mm. The lower plots show a comparison of the observed limits for all three dark pion masses: (c) using M_φ = 1.4 TeV, and (d) using cτ_{π_d} = 1 mm. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

95% CL exclusion contours as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}. The expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. A comparison of the observed limits is given in (d) for each of the three dark pion masses.

95% CL exclusion contours as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}. The expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. A comparison of the observed limits is given in (d) for each of the three dark pion masses.

95% CL exclusion contours as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}. The expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. A comparison of the observed limits is given in (d) for each of the three dark pion masses.

95% CL exclusion contours as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}. The expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. A comparison of the observed limits is given in (d) for each of the three dark pion masses.

Comparison of the 95% CL exclusion contours between ATLAS and CMS  for (a) models with m_{π_d} = 10 GeV and (b) models with m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. The expected and observed limits are shown for ATLAS, while only the observed limits in both the model agnostic and GNN cases are included for CMS. The expected limits from the CMS result are omitted, but are, in general, very close to the CMS observed limits.

Comparison of the 95% CL exclusion contours between ATLAS and CMS  for (a) models with m_{π_d} = 10 GeV and (b) models with m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. The expected and observed limits are shown for ATLAS, while only the observed limits in both the model agnostic and GNN cases are included for CMS. The expected limits from the CMS result are omitted, but are, in general, very close to the CMS observed limits.

Normalized minPTF distribution in data, with three selected signal samples for comparison

95% CL exclusion contours as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d} for the Cut-Based analysis. The expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. A comparison of the observed limits is given in (d) for each of the three dark pion masses.

95% CL exclusion contours as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d} for the Cut-Based analysis. The expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. A comparison of the observed limits is given in (d) for each of the three dark pion masses.

95% CL exclusion contours as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d} for the Cut-Based analysis. The expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. A comparison of the observed limits is given in (d) for each of the three dark pion masses.

95% CL exclusion contours as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d} for the Cut-Based analysis. The expected and observed limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV. A comparison of the observed limits is given in (d) for each of the three dark pion masses.

Comparison of observed and expected 95% CL limits of the Cut-Based analysis against the corresponding BDT-based analysis. Limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d} for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV.

Comparison of observed and expected 95% CL limits of the Cut-Based analysis against the corresponding BDT-based analysis. Limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d} for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV.

Comparison of observed and expected 95% CL limits of the Cut-Based analysis against the corresponding BDT-based analysis. Limits on σ(pp →φ^†φ) are shown as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d} for (a) m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, (b) m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, and (c) m_{π_d} = 20 GeV.

Normalized event-level BDT response distribution in data, with three selected signal samples for comparison.

Normalized jet-matched displaced vertex multiplicity (N_DV) distribution in data, with three selected signal samples for comparison.

Normalized event-level BDT response distribution in data, with three selected signal samples for comparison. All three signal models have M_φ = 1.8 TeV and cτ_{π_d} = 75 mm, but different m_{π_d}.

Normalized event-level BDT response distribution in data, with three selected signal samples for comparison. All three signal models have m_{π_d} = 10 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 20 mm, but different M_φ.

Normalized event-level BDT response distribution in data, with three selected signal samples for comparison. All three signal models have m_{π_d} = 10 GeV and M_φ = 1.4 TeV, but different cτ_{π_d}.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 1000 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 500 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 300 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 150 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 75 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 20 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 5 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limit for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 2 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and cτ_{π_d} = 1 mm as a function of dark mediator mass. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and M_φ = 2.2 TeV as a function of dark pion lifetime. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and M_φ = 2 TeV as a function of dark pion lifetime. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and M_φ = 1.8 TeV as a function of dark pion lifetime. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and M_φ = 1.6 TeV as a function of dark pion lifetime. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and M_φ = 1.4 TeV as a function of dark pion lifetime. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 5, 10, and 20 GeV and M_φ = 1 TeV as a function of dark pion lifetime. The mediator mass-dependent theoretical cross-section is given with the band corresponding to the uncertainty from NNLL-Fast.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 20 GeV as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 20 GeV as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 20 GeV as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 20 GeV as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 20 GeV as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits for models with m_{π_d} = 20 GeV as a function of M_φ and cτ_{π_d}.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, M_φ = 1600 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, M_φ = 1400 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, M_φ = 1000 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, M_φ = 2200 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, M_φ = 2000 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, M_φ = 1800 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, M_φ = 1600 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, M_φ = 1400 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 5 GeV, M_φ = 1000 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 20 GeV, M_φ = 2200 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 20 GeV, M_φ = 2000 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 20 GeV, M_φ = 1800 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 20 GeV, M_φ = 1600 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 20 GeV, M_φ = 1400 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 20 GeV, M_φ = 1000 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, M_φ = 2200 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, M_φ = 2000 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

Cut-Flow efficiencies for the m_{π_d} = 10 GeV, M_φ = 1800 GeV models for all cuts before entering the Search region (ABCD plane) and then for each of the ABCD regions separately.

The measured differential cross-section for $W^+$ in bins of the $p_T$ of the $W$.

Statistical correlations of angular coefficients and differential cross-section for $W^-$ as a function of $p_{T}(W)$. Included as a CSV file due to file size.

Statistical correlations of angular coefficients and differential cross-section for $W^+$ as a function of $p_{T}(W)$. Included as a CSV file due to file size.

Observed 95% $\text{CL}_\text{S}$ upper limits on the production cross-section times acceptance times branching ratio to jets, $\sigma \cdot A \cdot \text{BR}$, of Gaussian-shaped signals of 5%, 10%, and 15% width relative to their peak mass, $m_G$. Also included are the corresponding expected upper limits predicted for the case the $m_{jj}$ distribution is observed to be identical to the background prediction in each bin and the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ envelopes of outcomes expected for Poisson fluctuations around the background expectation. Limits are derived from the J100 signal region.

Observed 95% $\text{CL}_\text{S}$ upper limits on the the value of the coupling to quarks, $g_q$, of the $Z^\prime$ model as a function of the resonance mass $m_{Z^\prime}$. Also included are the corresponding expected upper limits predicted for the case the $m_{jj}$ distribution is observed to be identical to the background prediction in each bin and the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ envelopes of outcomes expected for Poisson fluctuations around the background expectation. Limits are derived from the J50 signal region.

Observed 95% $\text{CL}_\text{S}$ upper limits on the the value of the coupling to quarks, $g_q$, of the $Z^\prime$ model as a function of the resonance mass $m_{Z^\prime}$. Also included are the corresponding expected upper limits predicted for the case the $m_{jj}$ distribution is observed to be identical to the background prediction in each bin and the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ envelopes of outcomes expected for Poisson fluctuations around the background expectation. Limits are derived from the J100 signal region.

Acceptance of simulated $Z^\prime$ signal events given the analysis event selection as a function of $m_{Z^\prime}$. The solid black line corresponds to the acceptance without a lower $m_{jj}$ requirement applied, the solid blue line includes the $m_{jj} > 344$ GeV requirement of the J50 signal region, and the solid red line includes the $m_{jj} > 481$ GeV requirement of the J100 signal region.

Numbers of events in each of the two considered datasets after consecutively applying the analysis selections.

Observed 95% confidence level (CL) exclusion limits for the (a) |U_e|² and (b) |U_μ|² mixing parameters versus the HNL mass. The expected (dashed line) exclusion limits are also shown. The 1σ and 2σ uncertainty bands around the expected exclusion limit reflect uncertainties in signal and background yields.

Data and estimated background comparison in the three lepton SRs defined for the e^±e^±μ^∓ decay mode. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty of the background. These signal regions are not orthogonal by construction, and data events can be found in more than one signal region.

Data and estimated background comparison in the three lepton SRs defined for the μ^±μ^±e^∓ decay mode. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty of the background. These signal regions are not orthogonal by construction, and data events can be found in more than one signal region.

Data and estimated background comparison in the two lepton SRs defined for the μ^±μ^±e^∓ decay mode. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty of the background. These signal regions are not orthogonal by construction, and data events can be found in more than one signal region.

Data and estimated background comparison in a region enriched in WZ SM processes, defined with N_lept^signal =3, m_T >80 GeV and SC leptons with p_T > 30 GeV, in addition to the preselection defined in Section 5. Events entering the SRs defined in Section 5 are vetoed. The last bin includes overflow. The uncertainties shown with hashed bands, include only the statistical uncertainties and the full uncertainties associated with the data-driven background estimates. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields.

Identification of the three lepton signal region chosen to set the limits for the e^±e^±μ^∓ decay mode. The observed (continuous line) and expected (dashed line) exclusion limits at 95% CL are also shown.

Identification of the three lepton signal region chosen to set the limits for the μ^±μ^±e^∓ decay mode. The observed (continuous line) and expected (dashed line) exclusion limits at 95% CL are also shown.

Identification of the two lepton signal region chosen to set the limits for the μ^±μ^±e^∓ decay mode. The observed (continuous line) and expected (dashed line) exclusion limits at 95% CL are also shown. The grey boxed area highlights the regions where the fit is not converging for the observed limit, given the low statistics. While they do not yield a result independently, they are further used in a combined fit with the three lepton regions. In these fits, the signal is floated simultaneously in the two lepton and 3ℓ regions, in which case there are enough statistics to converge on a limit. In this high mass region, the two lepton region gives a minor improvement to the limits in the combined fit when compared to the 3ℓ only result.

Observed 95% confidence-level exclusion in |U_μ|² versus the HNL mass, as obtained with the two lepton and three lepton signal regions, before the combination. The expected (dashed line) exclusion limits are also shown.

Observed 95% confidence-level exclusion in |U_μ|² versus the HNL mass, as obtained with the two lepton (blue) and three lepton (magenta) signal regions, before the combination. The expected (dashed line) exclusion limits are also shown. For complexness, also the combined two lepton and three lepton limits (black) are displayed, together with the 1σ and 2σ of the median expected limit.

Observed 95% confidence-level exclusion in |U_μ|² versus the HNL mass, as obtained with the three lepton only signal regions. The expected (dashed line) exclusion limits are also shown.

Observed 95% confidence-level exclusion in |U_μ|² versus the HNL mass, as obtained with the two lepton only signal regions. The expected (dashed line) exclusion limits are also shown. The grey boxed area highlights the regions where the fit is not converging for the observed limit, given the low statistics. While they do not yield a result independently, they are further used in a combined fit with the three lepton regions. In these fits, the signal is floated simultaneously in the two lepton and 3ℓ regions, in which case there are enough statistics to converge on a limit. In this high mass region, the two lepton region gives a minor improvement to the limits in the combined fit when compared to the 3ℓ only result.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the (a) m_T(4ℓ, E_T^miss), (b) m^high(3ℓ), (c) m(Z), (d) E_T^miss, (e) p_T(Z), and (f) N_jets distribution in the (a, d) 2Z 0b, (b, e) 1Z 1b 2SFOS, and (c, f) 0Z 2SFOS region, after requiring the anomaly score to be below the 90% background rejection point. The background contributions after the likelihood fit to data ('post-fit') for the background-only hypothesis are shown as filled histograms. The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z, and tt̄H processes. The 'HF ℓ' ('LF ℓ') background component refers to processes containing one non-prompt light lepton from heavy-flavour (light-flavour) hadron decays. The ratio of the data to the background prediction ('Bkg.') is shown in the lower panel. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the tWZ production. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure. The last bin contains the overflow.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the (a) m_T(4ℓ, E_T^miss), (b) m^high(3ℓ), (c) m(Z), (d) E_T^miss, (e) p_T(Z), and (f) N_jets distribution in the (a, d) 2Z 0b, (b, e) 1Z 1b 2SFOS, and (c, f) 0Z 2SFOS region, after requiring the anomaly score to be below the 90% background rejection point. The background contributions after the likelihood fit to data ('post-fit') for the background-only hypothesis are shown as filled histograms. The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z, and tt̄H processes. The 'HF ℓ' ('LF ℓ') background component refers to processes containing one non-prompt light lepton from heavy-flavour (light-flavour) hadron decays. The ratio of the data to the background prediction ('Bkg.') is shown in the lower panel. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the tWZ production. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure. The last bin contains the overflow.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the (a) m_T(4ℓ, E_T^miss), (b) m^high(3ℓ), (c) m(Z), (d) E_T^miss, (e) p_T(Z), and (f) N_jets distribution in the (a, d) 2Z 0b, (b, e) 1Z 1b 2SFOS, and (c, f) 0Z 2SFOS region, after requiring the anomaly score to be below the 90% background rejection point. The background contributions after the likelihood fit to data ('post-fit') for the background-only hypothesis are shown as filled histograms. The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z, and tt̄H processes. The 'HF ℓ' ('LF ℓ') background component refers to processes containing one non-prompt light lepton from heavy-flavour (light-flavour) hadron decays. The ratio of the data to the background prediction ('Bkg.') is shown in the lower panel. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the tWZ production. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure. The last bin contains the overflow.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the (a) N_jets, (b) E_T^miss, (c) m(3ℓ), and (d) H_T^lep distribution in the (a) HFe CR, (b) HFμ CR, (c) LFe CR, and (d) the Wγ^*/tt̄γ^* validation region. The background contributions after the likelihood fit to data ('post-fit') for the background-only hypothesis are shown as filled histograms. The ratio of the data to the background prediction ('Bkg.') is shown in the lower panel. The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄W, tt̄Z, and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution in the 2ℓSS regions is dominated by the tt̄ and tt̄W production, and in the 3ℓ regions is dominated by the ZZ + LF production. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure. The last bin contains the overflow.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the (a) N_jets, (b) E_T^miss, (c) m(3ℓ), and (d) H_T^lep distribution in the (a) HFe CR, (b) HFμ CR, (c) LFe CR, and (d) the Wγ^*/tt̄γ^* validation region. The background contributions after the likelihood fit to data ('post-fit') for the background-only hypothesis are shown as filled histograms. The ratio of the data to the background prediction ('Bkg.') is shown in the lower panel. The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄W, tt̄Z, and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution in the 2ℓSS regions is dominated by the tt̄ and tt̄W production, and in the 3ℓ regions is dominated by the ZZ + LF production. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure. The last bin contains the overflow.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the (a) N_jets, (b) E_T^miss, (c) m(3ℓ), and (d) H_T^lep distribution in the (a) HFe CR, (b) HFμ CR, (c) LFe CR, and (d) the Wγ^*/tt̄γ^* validation region. The background contributions after the likelihood fit to data ('post-fit') for the background-only hypothesis are shown as filled histograms. The ratio of the data to the background prediction ('Bkg.') is shown in the lower panel. The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄W, tt̄Z, and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution in the 2ℓSS regions is dominated by the tt̄ and tt̄W production, and in the 3ℓ regions is dominated by the ZZ + LF production. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure. The last bin contains the overflow.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the (a) N_jets, (b) E_T^miss, (c) m(3ℓ), and (d) H_T^lep distribution in the (a) HFe CR, (b) HFμ CR, (c) LFe CR, and (d) the Wγ^*/tt̄γ^* validation region. The background contributions after the likelihood fit to data ('post-fit') for the background-only hypothesis are shown as filled histograms. The ratio of the data to the background prediction ('Bkg.') is shown in the lower panel. The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄W, tt̄Z, and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution in the 2ℓSS regions is dominated by the tt̄ and tt̄W production, and in the 3ℓ regions is dominated by the ZZ + LF production. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure. The last bin contains the overflow.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the discovery regions included in the model-independent fit, after a background-only fit to data in the five cut-based control regions and ten low-anomaly score discovery regions ('post-fit'). All signal bins are shown ('SR') together with the low-anomaly score discovery regions ('CR'). The various requirements on the anomaly score corresponding to the specified background rejection cuts (99.9/99/90/50%) are shown for all the applicable SRs and CRs. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate ('Bkg'). The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z (4ℓ only) and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Observed and expected excluded visible cross section limits, σ_vis for the model-independent regions. The various requirements on the anomaly score corresponding to the specified background rejection cuts (99.9/99/90/50%) are shown for all the applicable regions.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions, after a background-only fit to data ('post-fit'): (a) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e>μ, (b) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z ≥1b 2SFOS e>μ, (c) 4ℓ Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS μ>e, (d) 4ℓ Q=±2 0b e>μ, (e) 4ℓ Q=±2 ≥1b μ>e, and (f) the three ≥5ℓ regions: 0Z 0b μ>e, 0Z 0b e≥μ, and 0Z ≥1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate ('Bkg.'). The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z (4ℓ only) and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions, after a background-only fit to data ('post-fit'): (a) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e>μ, (b) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z ≥1b 2SFOS e>μ, (c) 4ℓ Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS μ>e, (d) 4ℓ Q=±2 0b e>μ, (e) 4ℓ Q=±2 ≥1b μ>e, and (f) the three ≥5ℓ regions: 0Z 0b μ>e, 0Z 0b e≥μ, and 0Z ≥1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate ('Bkg.'). The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z (4ℓ only) and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions, after a background-only fit to data ('post-fit'): (a) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e>μ, (b) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z ≥1b 2SFOS e>μ, (c) 4ℓ Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS μ>e, (d) 4ℓ Q=±2 0b e>μ, (e) 4ℓ Q=±2 ≥1b μ>e, and (f) the three ≥5ℓ regions: 0Z 0b μ>e, 0Z 0b e≥μ, and 0Z ≥1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate ('Bkg.'). The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z (4ℓ only) and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions, after a background-only fit to data ('post-fit'): (a) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e>μ, (b) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z ≥1b 2SFOS e>μ, (c) 4ℓ Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS μ>e, (d) 4ℓ Q=±2 0b e>μ, (e) 4ℓ Q=±2 ≥1b μ>e, and (f) the three ≥5ℓ regions: 0Z 0b μ>e, 0Z 0b e≥μ, and 0Z ≥1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate ('Bkg.'). The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z (4ℓ only) and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions, after a background-only fit to data ('post-fit'): (a) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e>μ, (b) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z ≥1b 2SFOS e>μ, (c) 4ℓ Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS μ>e, (d) 4ℓ Q=±2 0b e>μ, (e) 4ℓ Q=±2 ≥1b μ>e, and (f) the three ≥5ℓ regions: 0Z 0b μ>e, 0Z 0b e≥μ, and 0Z ≥1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate ('Bkg.'). The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z (4ℓ only) and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions, after a background-only fit to data ('post-fit'): (a) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e>μ, (b) 4ℓ Q=0 0Z ≥1b 2SFOS e>μ, (c) 4ℓ Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS μ>e, (d) 4ℓ Q=±2 0b e>μ, (e) 4ℓ Q=±2 ≥1b μ>e, and (f) the three ≥5ℓ regions: 0Z 0b μ>e, 0Z 0b e≥μ, and 0Z ≥1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate ('Bkg.'). The 'tt+X' background component includes the tt̄Z (4ℓ only) and tt̄H processes. The 'Other' contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background ('Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section (&sigma;) as a function of the VLL mass for the (a) VLL_e^D, (b) VLL_&mu;^D, (c) VLL_e^S, (d) VLL_&mu;^S models, and on the plane of the S_ji mass versus the VLL mass for the (e) flavourful VLL_e, and (f) flavourful VLL_&mu; models. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS search [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05%282025%29075">JHEP05(2025)075</a>], considering only the 4&#8467; channel, are overlaid in dashed grey lines in (a-d). The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL for the (a) wino-like chargino and neutralino, and (b) smuon models, as a function of the masses of &chi;&#771;^&plusmn;₁ / &chi;&#771;⁰₂ and &chi;&#771;⁰₁, and &mu;_L,R and &Delta;m (&mu;_L,R, &chi;&#771;⁰₁), respectively. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS searches [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07%282021%29167">JHEP07(2021)167</a>, <a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12%282023%29081">JHEP12(2023)081</a>] are overlaid in dashed grey lines. The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL for the (a) wino-like chargino and neutralino, and (b) smuon models, as a function of the masses of &chi;&#771;^&plusmn;₁ / &chi;&#771;⁰₂ and &chi;&#771;⁰₁, and &mu;_L,R and &Delta;m (&mu;_L,R, &chi;&#771;⁰₁), respectively. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS searches [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07%282021%29167">JHEP07(2021)167</a>, <a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12%282023%29081">JHEP12(2023)081</a>] are overlaid in dashed grey lines. The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL for the (a) wino-like chargino and neutralino, and (b) smuon models, as a function of the masses of &chi;&#771;^&plusmn;₁ / &chi;&#771;⁰₂ and &chi;&#771;⁰₁, and &mu;_L,R and &Delta;m (&mu;_L,R, &chi;&#771;⁰₁), respectively. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS searches [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07%282021%29167">JHEP07(2021)167</a>, <a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12%282023%29081">JHEP12(2023)081</a>] are overlaid in dashed grey lines. The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL for the (a) wino-like chargino and neutralino, and (b) smuon models, as a function of the masses of &chi;&#771;^&plusmn;₁ / &chi;&#771;⁰₂ and &chi;&#771;⁰₁, and &mu;_L,R and &Delta;m (&mu;_L,R, &chi;&#771;⁰₁), respectively. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS searches [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07%282021%29167">JHEP07(2021)167</a>, <a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12%282023%29081">JHEP12(2023)081</a>] are overlaid in dashed grey lines. The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL for the (a) wino-like chargino and neutralino, and (b) smuon models, as a function of the masses of &chi;&#771;^&plusmn;₁ / &chi;&#771;⁰₂ and &chi;&#771;⁰₁, and &mu;_L,R and &Delta;m (&mu;_L,R, &chi;&#771;⁰₁), respectively. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS searches [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07%282021%29167">JHEP07(2021)167</a>, <a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12%282023%29081">JHEP12(2023)081</a>] are overlaid in dashed grey lines. The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL for the (a) wino-like chargino and neutralino, and (b) smuon models, as a function of the masses of &chi;&#771;^&plusmn;₁ / &chi;&#771;⁰₂ and &chi;&#771;⁰₁, and &mu;_L,R and &Delta;m (&mu;_L,R, &chi;&#771;⁰₁), respectively. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS searches [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07%282021%29167">JHEP07(2021)167</a>, <a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12%282023%29081">JHEP12(2023)081</a>] are overlaid in dashed grey lines. The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL for the (a) wino-like chargino and neutralino, and (b) smuon models, as a function of the masses of &chi;&#771;^&plusmn;₁ / &chi;&#771;⁰₂ and &chi;&#771;⁰₁, and &mu;_L,R and &Delta;m (&mu;_L,R, &chi;&#771;⁰₁), respectively. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS searches [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07%282021%29167">JHEP07(2021)167</a>, <a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12%282023%29081">JHEP12(2023)081</a>] are overlaid in dashed grey lines. The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Combined observed and expected limits at 95&percnt; CL for the (a) wino-like chargino and neutralino, and (b) smuon models, as a function of the masses of &chi;&#771;^&plusmn;₁ / &chi;&#771;⁰₂ and &chi;&#771;⁰₁, and &mu;_L,R and &Delta;m (&mu;_L,R, &chi;&#771;⁰₁), respectively. The expected limits from the dedicated ATLAS searches [<a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07%282021%29167">JHEP07(2021)167</a>, <a href=" https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12%282023%29081">JHEP12(2023)081</a>] are overlaid in dashed grey lines. The inner and outer bands around the expected limit are the &plusmn;1 &sigma; and &plusmn;2 &sigma; variations including all uncertainties, respectively.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the distribution of the b-jet multiplicity in the WZ/ttZ CR after the VV jet multiplicity correction. The background contributions after the likelihood fit to data (&apos;post-fit&apos;) for the background-only hypothesis are shown as filled histograms. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg.&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;W, tt&#772;Z, and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the tZq production. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The last bin contains the overflow.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the event yields in the HF_e CR, HF_&mu;, Conversions, and LF_e CRs, after a background-only fit to data (&apos;Post-fit&apos;). The lower panel shows the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg.&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;W, tt&#772;Z, and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the ZZ+LF process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band.

Comparison between data and the background prediction for the discovery regions included in the model-independent fit, before any fit to data (&apos;pre-fit&apos;). All signal bins are shown (&apos;SR&apos;) together with the low-anomaly score discovery regions (&apos;CR&apos;). The various requirements on the anomaly score corresponding to the specified background rejection cuts (99.9/99/90/50&percnt;) are shown for all the applicable SRs and CRs. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;Z (4&#8467; only) and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrows indicate points for which the data-to-background (&apos;Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions before any fit to data (&apos;pre-fit&apos;): (a) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (b) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z &ge;1b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (c) 4&#8467; Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS &mu;&gt;e, (d) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 0b e&gt;&mu;, (e) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 &ge;1b &mu;&gt;e, and (f) the three &ge;5&#8467; regions: 0Z 0b &mu;&gt;e, 0Z 0b e&ge;&mu;, and 0Z &ge;1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg.&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;Z (4&#8467; only) and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background (&apos;Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions before any fit to data (&apos;pre-fit&apos;): (a) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (b) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z &ge;1b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (c) 4&#8467; Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS &mu;&gt;e, (d) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 0b e&gt;&mu;, (e) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 &ge;1b &mu;&gt;e, and (f) the three &ge;5&#8467; regions: 0Z 0b &mu;&gt;e, 0Z 0b e&ge;&mu;, and 0Z &ge;1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg.&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;Z (4&#8467; only) and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background (&apos;Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions before any fit to data (&apos;pre-fit&apos;): (a) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (b) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z &ge;1b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (c) 4&#8467; Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS &mu;&gt;e, (d) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 0b e&gt;&mu;, (e) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 &ge;1b &mu;&gt;e, and (f) the three &ge;5&#8467; regions: 0Z 0b &mu;&gt;e, 0Z 0b e&ge;&mu;, and 0Z &ge;1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg.&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;Z (4&#8467; only) and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background (&apos;Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions before any fit to data (&apos;pre-fit&apos;): (a) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (b) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z &ge;1b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (c) 4&#8467; Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS &mu;&gt;e, (d) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 0b e&gt;&mu;, (e) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 &ge;1b &mu;&gt;e, and (f) the three &ge;5&#8467; regions: 0Z 0b &mu;&gt;e, 0Z 0b e&ge;&mu;, and 0Z &ge;1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg.&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;Z (4&#8467; only) and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background (&apos;Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions before any fit to data (&apos;pre-fit&apos;): (a) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (b) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z &ge;1b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (c) 4&#8467; Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS &mu;&gt;e, (d) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 0b e&gt;&mu;, (e) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 &ge;1b &mu;&gt;e, and (f) the three &ge;5&#8467; regions: 0Z 0b &mu;&gt;e, 0Z 0b e&ge;&mu;, and 0Z &ge;1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg.&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;Z (4&#8467; only) and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background (&apos;Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Comparison between data and the background estimate for the anomaly score distribution used in different benchmark regions before any fit to data (&apos;pre-fit&apos;): (a) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z 0b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (b) 4&#8467; Q=0 0Z &ge;1b 2SFOS e&gt;&mu;, (c) 4&#8467; Q=0 1Z 0b 2SFOS &mu;&gt;e, (d) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 0b e&gt;&mu;, (e) 4&#8467; Q=&plusmn;2 &ge;1b &mu;&gt;e, and (f) the three &ge;5&#8467; regions: 0Z 0b &mu;&gt;e, 0Z 0b e&ge;&mu;, and 0Z &ge;1b, defined without AD. Distributions for one flavourful VLL_e signal point for a VLL mass of 1 TeV and scalar of 550 GeV, a wino-like chargino and neutralino signal point of mass 1.3 TeV, and a smuon signal point of mass 350 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV are overlaid for comparison. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the background estimate (&apos;Bkg.&apos;). The &apos;tt+X&apos; background component includes the tt&#772;Z (4&#8467; only) and tt&#772;H processes. The &apos;Other&apos; contribution is dominated by the VH process. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty in the signal-plus-background prediction is indicated by the blue hatched band. The upward-pointing blue arrow indicates a point for which the data-to-background (&apos;Data/Bkg.’) ratio exceeds the vertical range of the figure.

Observed profile likelihood scans of $\kappa_\lambda$. The scans are performed by varying only the coupling modifier of interest, while all other relevant coupling modifiers are fixed to unity.

Expected profile likelihood scans of $\kappa_\lambda$. The scans are performed by varying only the coupling modifier of interest, while all other relevant coupling modifiers are fixed to unity.

Observed profile likelihood scans of $\kappa_{2V}$. The scans are performed by varying only the coupling modifier of interest, while all other relevant coupling modifiers are fixed to unity.

Expected profile likelihood scans of $\kappa_{2V}$. The scans are performed by varying only the coupling modifier of interest, while all other relevant coupling modifiers are fixed to unity.

Confidence level contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) in the $(\kappa_\lambda, \kappa_{2V})$ parameter space, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the best-fit value is denoted by the cross.

Confidence level contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) in the $(\kappa_\lambda, \kappa_{2V})$ parameter space, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the best-fit value is denoted by the cross.

Observed $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distributions for the high-mass categories in Run 2. The lines show the fit results for the continuum background only (light dotted), adding the single Higgs boson background (black dotted) and the full fit (solid).

Observed $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distributions for the high-mass categories in Run 3. The lines show the fit results for the continuum background only (light dotted), adding the single Higgs boson background (black dotted) and the full fit (solid).

Observed $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distributions for the high-mass categories in Run 2. The lines show the fit results for the continuum background only (light dotted), adding the single Higgs boson background (black dotted) and the full fit (solid).

Observed $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distributions for the high-mass categories in Run 3. The lines show the fit results for the continuum background only (light dotted), adding the single Higgs boson background (black dotted) and the full fit (solid).

Observed $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distributions for the high-mass categories in Run 2. 3he lines show the fit results for the continuum background only (light dotted), adding the single Higgs boson background (black dotted) and the full fit (solid).

Observed $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distributions for the high-mass categories in Run 3. The lines show the fit results for the continuum background only (light dotted), adding the single Higgs boson background (black dotted) and the full fit (solid).

Observed $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distributions for the low-mass categories in Run 2. The lines show the fit results for the continuum background only (light dotted), adding the single Higgs boson background (black dotted) and the full fit (solid).

Observed $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distributions for the low-mass categories in Run 3. The lines show the fit results for the continuum background only (light dotted), adding the single Higgs boson background (black dotted) and the full fit (solid).

Observed $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distributions for the low-mass categories in Run 2. The lines show the fit results for the continuum background only (light dotted), adding the single Higgs boson background (black dotted) and the full fit (solid).

Observed $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distributions for the low-mass categories in Run 3. The lines show the fit results for the continuum background only (light dotted), adding the single Higgs boson background (black dotted) and the full fit (solid).

Observed $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distributions for the low-mass categories in Run 2. The lines show the fit results for the continuum background only (light dotted), adding the single Higgs boson background (black dotted) and the full fit (solid).

Observed $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distributions for the low-mass categories in Run 3. The lines show the fit results for the continuum background only (light dotted), adding the single Higgs boson background (black dotted) and the full fit (solid).

Observed $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distributions for the low-mass categories in Run 2. The lines show the fit results for the continuum background only (light dotted), adding the single Higgs boson background (black dotted) and the full fit (solid).

Observed $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distributions for the low-mass categories in Run 3. The lines show the fit results for the continuum background only (light dotted), adding the single Higgs boson background (black dotted) and the full fit (solid).

Observed and expected profiled likelihood scans on $\kappa_\lambda$ for the low-mass (LM) and high-mass (HM) regions separately and for their combination. The scan is performed by floating the indicated parameter of interest while fixing all the others to their SM value.

Observed and expected profiled likelihood scans on $\kappa_\lambda$ for the low-mass (LM) and high-mass (HM) regions separately and for their combination. The scan is performed by floating the indicated parameter of interest while fixing all the others to their SM value.

Observed and expected profiled likelihood scans on $\kappa_\lambda$ for the low-mass (LM) and high-mass (HM) regions separately and for their combination. The scan is performed by floating the indicated parameter of interest while fixing all the others to their SM value.

Observed and expected profiled likelihood scans on $\kappa_\lambda$ for the low-mass (LM) and high-mass (HM) regions separately and for their combination. The scan is performed by floating the indicated parameter of interest while fixing all the others to their SM value.

Observed and expected profiled likelihood scans on $\kappa_\lambda$ for the low-mass (LM) and high-mass (HM) regions separately and for their combination. The scan is performed by floating the indicated parameter of interest while fixing all the others to their SM value.

Observed and expected profiled likelihood scans on $\kappa_\lambda$ for the low-mass (LM) and high-mass (HM) regions separately and for their combination. The scan is performed by floating the indicated parameter of interest while fixing all the others to their SM value.

The expected number of events (estimated by using simulation) from the SM HH signals and single Higgs boson production, and the expected number of events from the continuum background, evaluated in the 120 GeV < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window in Run 3 for the different low-mass (LM) and high-mass (HM) categories. For comparison, the number of data events is also shown. The uncertainties in the HH signals and single Higgs boson backgrounds include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. Asymmetric uncertainties arise primarily from the theory calculation of the SM ggF HH cross section and the large uncertainty in the yield of single Higgs bosons produced in ggF events in association with heavy-flavour jets. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious signal uncertainty.

The 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Z' \rightarrow \chi \chi$) times branching ratio B in fb with all statistical and systematic uncertainties, for the $R_{\text{inv}}=$0.6 signal points.

Data yield in the PFN signal region.

Yield of data in the ANTELOPE signal region in the binning used for BumpHunter fitting.

Data from Figure 2, panel d, upper panel, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 2, panel d, lower panel, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 5-10% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 20-30% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 40-50% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 5-10% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 20-30% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 40-50% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Figure 5, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 5, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel c, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel d, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 7, Zero Crossing Point of $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 7, $\left\langle [p_{T}]\right\rangle$ for $p_{T}$ range of 0.5-10 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 8, panel a, Closure of Sum Rule 1 for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 8, panel b, Closure of Sum Rule 2 for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 9, panel a, $v_{0}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 9, panel b, $v_{0} / v^{5\%}_{0}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 10, panel a, $v_{0}\sqrt{N_{ch}}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 10, panel b, $v_{0}\sqrt{N_{ch}}$ vs Centrality for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 5-10% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 20-30% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 40-50% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 60-70% Centrality

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for mϕ≠ 125 GeV. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on (σ/σggH)×B for all Higgs boson portal mediator samples where the cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb [97]. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for mϕ≠ 125 GeV benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for mϕ≠ 125 GeV benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for baryogenesis samples for the one-DV analysis. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for baryogenesis samples for the one-DV analysis. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for baryogenesis samples for the one-DV analysis. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Summary of the limits for the Z+ALP model. Comparison between observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the Z+ALP production cross-section σ×Ba →gg for ma = 40 GeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on σ×Ba →gg for all considered ALP mass points.

Comparison between the observed and expected 95% CL limits on (σ/σZH) ×BH →ss for Higgs boson portal mediator and ms=35 GeV for Z-associated H production with one DV.

Observed 95% CL limits on (σ/σZH) ×BH →ss for all Higgs boson portal mediator samples where the cross-section is normalized to the Z(arrow ℓℓ)-associated Higgs boson production cross-section, σZH = 0.089 pb .

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×Bϕ →ss for mϕ≠125 GeV. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×Bϕ →ss for mϕ≠125 GeV. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the σ×BZd →ff production cross-section for dark photon Zd benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the σ×BZd →ff production cross-section for dark photon Zd benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the one-DV search. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the one-DV search. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the one-DV search. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 60 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 60 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 200 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark sample for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 400 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark sample for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 60 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 60 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 200 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark sample for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 400 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark sample for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →νbb̄ channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →νbb̄ channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →νbb̄ channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →cbs channel) for one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →cbs channel) for one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →cbs channel) for one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →ντ+ τ- channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →ντ+ τ- channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →ντ+ τ- channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for the Z+ALP benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for the Z+ALP benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for the Z+ALP benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency maps as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.22 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.22 m.

One-DV vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.22 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.22 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.66 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.66 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.66 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.66 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.13 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.13 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.13 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.13 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.58 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.58 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.58 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.58 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=1.31 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=1.31 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=1.31 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=1.31 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.63 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.63 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.63 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.63 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.05 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.05 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.05 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.05 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=5.32 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=5.32 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=5.32 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=5.32 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.61 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.61 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.61 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.61 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.59 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.59 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.59 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.59 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.84 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.84 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.84 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.84 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.31 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.31 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.31 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.31 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.29 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.29 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.29 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.29 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.40 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.40 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.40 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.40 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.33 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.33 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.33 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.33 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=6.04 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=6.04 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=6.04 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=6.04 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency maps as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency maps as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency maps as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency maps as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region for mALP=0.1 GeV and cτsim=0.003 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region for mALP=0.1 GeV and cτsim=0.003 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region for mALP=0.1 GeV and cτsim=0.003 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region for mALP=0.1 GeV and cτsim=0.003 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=1 GeV and cτsim=0.031 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=1 GeV and cτsim=0.031 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=1 GeV and cτsim=0.031 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=1 GeV and cτsim=0.031 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=10 GeV and cτsim=0.31 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=10 GeV and cτsim=0.31 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=10 GeV and cτsim=0.31 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=10 GeV and cτsim=0.31 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=40 GeV and cτsim=0.48 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=40 GeV and cτsim=0.48 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=40 GeV and cτsim=0.48 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=40 GeV and cτsim=0.48 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=5 GeV, cτsim=0.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=5 GeV, cτsim=0.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=5 GeV, cτsim=0.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=5 GeV, cτsim=0.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=3.0 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=3.0 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=3.0 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=3.0 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=50 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=50 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=50 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=50 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=3.4 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=3.4 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=3.4 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=3.4 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudial decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=200 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=200 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=200 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=200 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=400 GeV, cτsim=4.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=400 GeV, cτsim=4.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=400 GeV, cτsim=4.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=400 GeV, cτsim=4.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.12 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.12 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.12 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.12 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=15 GeV, cτsim=0.25 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=15 GeV, cτsim=0.25 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=15 GeV, cτsim=0.25 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=15 GeV, cτsim=0.25 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.1 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.1 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.1 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.1 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=0.75 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=0.75 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=0.75 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=0.75 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.0 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.0 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.0 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.0 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=80 GeV, cτsim=2.0 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=80 GeV, cτsim=2.0 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=80 GeV, cτsim=2.0 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=80 GeV, cτsim=2.0 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=175 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=175 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=175 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=175 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.4 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.4 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.4 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.4 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=4.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=4.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=4.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=4.5 m.