Observed upper limits at 90% CL on the square of the kinetic mixing coefficient $\epsilon$ in the minimal model of a dark photon

Observed upper limits at 90% CL on the mixing angle $\theta_H$ for the type IV 2HDM+S scenario with fixed $tan\beta=0.5$

The combined efficiency of the dimuon scouting trigger and the MVA muon selection, averaged between 2017 and 2018, weighted by the integrated luminosity of each year. The trigger and selection efficiencies are also included in the table.

Theory cross-section times branching fraction to muons times acceptance for the dark photon and 2HDM+S models.

The Levy scale parameter $R$ versus the transverse mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ in different centrality classes for negatively and positively charged hadron pairs.

The $1/R^2$ distribution vs. transverse mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ in different centrality classes for negatively and positively charged hadron pairs.

The linear-fit parameter $A$ versus $\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle$ for positively and negatively charged hadron pairs. The bin range on $\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle$ represents the 68% confidence interval associated to its uncertainty.

The linear-fit parameter $B$ versus $\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle$ for positively and negatively charged hadron pairs. The bin range on $\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle$ represents the 68% confidence interval associated to its uncertainty.

The Levy scale parameter $R$ versus $\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle^{1/3}$ in different $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ classes for negatively and positively charged hadron pairs. The bin range on $\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle^{1/3}$ represents the 68% confidence interval associated to its uncertainty.

The Levy stability index $\alpha$ versus the transverse mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ in different centrality classes for negatively and positively charged hadron pairs.

The average Levy stability index $\langle \alpha \rangle$ versus $\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle$ for both positively and negatively charged hadron pairs. The bin range on $\langle N_{\text{part}}\rangle$ represents the 68% confidence interval associated to its uncertainty.

The correlation strength $\lambda$ versus the transverse mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ in different centrality classes for negatively and positively charged hadron pairs.

The correlation strength (re-scaled with the square of the pion fraction) $\lambda ^*$ versus the transverse mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ in different centrality classes for positively and negatively charged hadron pairs.

The expected (dotted black) and observed (solid black) upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma_{T^\prime bq(T^\prime \rightarrow tH)}$ in the hadronic channel displayed as a function of $\rm{M}_{T^\prime}$. The green (yellow) band represents the 68% (95%) of the limit values expected under the background-only hypothesis. The theoretical cross sections for the singlet $T^\prime$ production with representative $\kappa_T$-values fixed at 0.1, 0.15, 0.2 and 0.25 (for $\Gamma/\rm{M}_{T^\prime} < 5\%$) are shown as solid red lines.

Selection of the hadronic signal region for the three BDTs and $\rm{M}_{T^\prime}$ windows.

Selection of the leptonic signal region for the three BDTs and $\rm{M}_{T^\prime}$ windows.

The expected yields of different processes in each signal window for events with a $T^{\prime}$ with mass in the range $\rm{M}_{T^\prime} \in [600, 1200]$ GeV, and the observed number of events in the signal region $m_{\gamma\gamma} \in [115, 135]$. Here, the yields for the $T^\prime$ are for $\kappa_{T}$ fixed at 0.2.

Signal efficiency for the hadronic channel (left) and the leptonic channel (right) in the signal regions as optimized for each of the three different $\rm{M}_{T^\prime}$ ranges, [600, 700], [700, 1000] and [1000, 1200] GeV, represented as red, green and blue curves respectively. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of the events after the final selection to the total expected events.

The profile likelihood scan as a function of Bs to mu+mu- and B0 to mu+mu- decay branching fractions in 2D.

The nuclear modification factor $\mathrm{R_{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for prompt $\Lambda^+_c$ production in centrality regions of 0-90, 0-10, 10-30, 30-50 and 50-90% in PbPb collisions. The global uncertainty includes the uncertainties for the luminosity of pp collisions, number of MB events in PbPb collisions, and tracking efficiency. The global uncertainty for $\mathrm{R_{AA}}$ is 16.5%.

The ratio of the production cross sections of prompt $\Lambda^+_c$ to prompt $\mathrm{D_0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ from pp collisions. The global normalization uncertainty is 6.6%.

The ratio of the $\mathrm{T_{AA}}$-scaled prompt $\Lambda^+_c$ yields to prompt $\mathrm{D_0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ from PbPb collisions for 0-90 and 0-10% centrality classes. The global normalization uncertainty is 7.3%.

The ratios between the hydrodynamic probes and their Taylor expansions. The ratios are plotted as functions of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~\textrm{Te}\textrm{V}$. The measurement is performed with charged particles within the acceptance region.

The ratios between the hydrodynamic probes and their Taylor expansions. The ratios are plotted as functions of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~\textrm{Te}\textrm{V}$. The measurement is performed with charged particles within the acceptance region.

The magnitudes of the measured skewness $\gamma_1^\textrm{exp}$ and "corrected" skewness $\gamma_{1,\textrm{corr}}^\textrm{exp}$ as functions of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~\textrm{Te}\textrm{V}$. The measurement is performed with charged particles within the acceptance region.

The magnitudes of the measured kurtosis $\gamma_2^\textrm{exp}$ and "corrected" kurtosis $\gamma_{2,\textrm{corr}}^\textrm{exp}$ as functions of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~\textrm{Te}\textrm{V}$. The measurement is performed with charged particles within the acceptance region.

The magnitudes of the measured superskewness $\gamma_3^\textrm{exp}$ and "corrected" superskewness $\gamma_{3,\textrm{corr}}^\textrm{exp}$ as functions of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~\textrm{Te}\textrm{V}$. The measurement is performed with charged particles within the acceptance region.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inclusive jet cross sections measured as a function of $P_T^{\rm jet}$ for $Q^2$ = 16.0-22.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 6 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Inclusive jet cross sections measured as a function of $P_T^{\rm jet}$ for $Q^2$ = 22.0-30.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 6 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Inclusive jet cross sections measured as a function of $P_T^{\rm jet}$ for $Q^2$ = 30.0-42.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 6 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Inclusive jet cross sections measured as a function of $P_T^{\rm jet}$ for $Q^2$ = 42.0-60.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 6 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Inclusive jet cross sections measured as a function of $P_T^{\rm jet}$ for $Q^2$ = 60.0-80.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 6 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Dijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_2$ for $Q^2$ = 5.5-8.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 7 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Dijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_2$ for $Q^2$ = 8.0-11.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 7 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Dijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_2$ for $Q^2$ = 11.0-16.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 7 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Dijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_2$ for $Q^2$ = 16.0-22.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 7 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Dijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_2$ for $Q^2$ = 22.0-30.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 7 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Dijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_2$ for $Q^2$ = 30.0-42.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 7 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Dijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_2$ for $Q^2$ = 42.0-60.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 7 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Dijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_2$ for $Q^2$ = 60.0-80.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 7 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Trijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_3$ for $Q^2$ = 5.5-8.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 8 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Trijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_3$ for $Q^2$ = 8.0-11.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 8 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Trijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_3$ for $Q^2$ = 11.0-16.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 8 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Trijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_3$ for $Q^2$ = 16.0-22.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 8 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Trijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_3$ for $Q^2$ = 22.0-30.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 8 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Trijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_3$ for $Q^2$ = 30.0-42.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 8 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Trijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_3$ for $Q^2$ = 42.0-60.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 8 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Trijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_3$ for $Q^2$ = 60.0-80.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 8 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised inclusive jet cross sections measured as a function of $P_T^{\rm jet}$ for $Q^2$ = 5.5-8.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 9 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised inclusive jet cross sections measured as a function of $P_T^{\rm jet}$ for $Q^2$ = 8.0-11.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 9 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised inclusive jet cross sections measured as a function of $P_T^{\rm jet}$ for $Q^2$ = 11.0-16.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 9 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised inclusive jet cross sections measured as a function of $P_T^{\rm jet}$ for $Q^2$ = 16.0-22.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 9 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised inclusive jet cross sections measured as a function of $P_T^{\rm jet}$ for $Q^2$ = 22.0-30.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 9 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised inclusive jet cross sections measured as a function of $P_T^{\rm jet}$ for $Q^2$ = 30.0-42.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 9 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised inclusive jet cross sections measured as a function of $P_T^{\rm jet}$ for $Q^2$ = 42.0-60.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 9 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised inclusive jet cross sections measured as a function of $P_T^{\rm jet}$ for $Q^2$ = 60.0-80.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 9 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised dijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_2$ for $Q^2$ = 5.5-8.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 10 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised dijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_2$ for $Q^2$ = 8.0-11.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 10 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised dijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_2$ for $Q^2$ = 11.0-16.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 10 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised dijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_2$ for $Q^2$ = 16.0-22.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 10 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised dijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_2$ for $Q^2$ = 22.0-30.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 10 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised dijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_2$ for $Q^2$ = 30.0-42.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 10 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised dijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_2$ for $Q^2$ = 42.0-60.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 10 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised dijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_2$ for $Q^2$ = 60.0-80.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 10 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised trijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_3$ for $Q^2$ = 5.5-8.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 11 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised trijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_3$ for $Q^2$ = 8.0-11.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 11 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised trijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_3$ for $Q^2$ = 11.0-16.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 11 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised trijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_3$ for $Q^2$ = 16.0-22.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 11 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised trijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_3$ for $Q^2$ = 22.0-30.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 11 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised trijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_3$ for $Q^2$ = 30.0-42.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 11 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised trijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_3$ for $Q^2$ = 42.0-60.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 11 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised trijet cross sections measured as a function of $\langle P_T \rangle_3$ for $Q^2$ = 60.0-80.0 GeV$^2$. The correction factors on the theoretical cross sections $c^{\rm had}$ are listed together with their uncertainties. The radiative correction factors $c^{\rm rad}$ are already included in the quoted cross sections. Note that the uncertainties labelled $\delta^{E_{e^\prime}}$ and $\delta^{\theta_{e^\prime}}$ in Table 11 of the paper (arXiv:1611.03421v3) should be swapped. See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Matrix of statistical correlation coefficients of the unfolded jet cross sections at low $Q^2$.

Matrix of statistical correlation coefficients of the unfolded normalised jet cross sections at low $Q^2$.

Inclusive jet cross sections for $P_T^{\rm jet}$ = 5-7 GeV$^2$ measured as a function of $Q^2$ in the range 150-15000 GeV$^2$. The cross section values and uncertainties have been determined in the scope of the analysis of an earlier H1 publication (<a href="https://inspirehep.net/record/1301218">INSPIRE</a>, <a href="https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins1301218">HEPData</a>). See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Normalised inclusive jet cross sections for $P_T^{\rm jet}$ = 5-7 GeV$^2$ measured as a function of $Q^2$ in the range 150-15000 GeV$^2$. The cross section values and uncertainties have been determined in the scope of the analysis of an earlier H1 publication (<a href="https://inspirehep.net/record/1301218">INSPIRE</a>, <a href="https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins1301218">HEPData</a>). See Table 5 of arXiv:1406.4709v2 for details of the correlation model.

Matrix of statistical correlation coefficients of the unfolded jet cross sections at high $Q^2$. The statistical correlations have been determined in the scope of the analysis of an earlier H1 publication (<a href="https://inspirehep.net/record/1301218">INSPIRE</a>, <a href="https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins1301218">HEPData</a>).

Matrix of statistical correlation coefficients of the unfolded normalised jet cross sections at high $Q^2$. The statistical correlations have been determined in the scope of the analysis of an earlier H1 publication (<a href="https://inspirehep.net/record/1301218">INSPIRE</a>, <a href="https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins1301218">HEPData</a>).

The strong coupling extracted from the normalised inclusive jet, dijet and trijet data at NLO as a function of the renormalisation scale $\mu_r$. For each $\mu_r$ the values of the strong coupling $\alpha_s(\mu_r)$ and the equivalent values $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ are given with experimental (exp) and theoretical (th) uncertainties.

Postfit score of the $\text{t}\bar{\text{t}}\text{Z}$ output node from the multiclass classifier in $\text{SR}_\text{3l,3j}$ for events with at least 2 b jets

Postfit score of the tWZ output node from the binary classifier in $\text{SR}_\text{3l,2j}$

$\text{p}_\text{T}$ of the leading jet in the $\text{SR}_\text{3l,2j}$

$\text{p}_\text{T}$ of the leading lepton in the $\text{SR}_\text{3l,2j}$

Max $\text{p}_\text{T}$ of the lepton-jet in the $\text{SR}_\text{3l,3j}$

Invariant mass of the system of leptons, jets, and $\vec{\text{p}}^\text{miss}_\text{T}$ in the $\text{SR}_\text{3l,3j}$

Two-dimensional likelihood scan of the signal strenghts of tWZ ($\mu_\text{tWZ}$) vs. $\text{t}\bar{\text{t}}\text{Z}$ ($\mu_{\text{t}\bar{\text{t}}\text{Z}}$). The blue lines show the 68%, 95%, and 99% confidence level contours. The black cross represents the best-fit value, while the red diamond the SM expectation

Two-dimensional likelihood scan of the signal strenghts of tWZ ($\mu_\text{tWZ}$) vs. $\text{t}\bar{\text{t}}\text{Z}$ ($\mu_{\text{t}\bar{\text{t}}\text{Z}}$). The blue lines show the 68%, 95%, and 99% confidence level contours. The black cross represents the best-fit value, while the red diamond the SM expectation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transverse dilepton-$p_{T}^{miss}$ mass pre-fit distribution for selected events in SR2 of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Dilepton mass pre-fit distribution for selected events in SR3 of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Dilepton $p_T$ pre-fit distribution for selected events in SR3 of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Dijet $p_T$ pre-fit distribution for selected events in the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Lepton-dijet $p_T$ pre-fit distribution for selected events in the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Maximum $p_T$ of the visible particles divided by the missing $p_T$, for selected events in the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between jets, for selected events in the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between the lepton and missing $p_T$, for selected events in the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between the lepton and the dijet system, for selected events in the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta R$ distance between the leptons, for selected events in the non-prompt validation region of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between the di-lepton system and the missing $p_T$, for selected events in the non-prompt validation region of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between the lepton and the di-jet system, for selected events in the non-prompt validation region of the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between the lepton-dijet system and the missing $p_T$, for selected events in the non-prompt validation region of the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Leading lepton $p_T$ pre-fit distribution for selected events in the top control region of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Trailing lepton $p_T$ pre-fit distribution for selected events in the top control region of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Dilepton mass pre-fit distribution for selected events in the Drell-Yan control region of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Missing $p_T$ pre-fit distribution for selected events in the Drell-Yan control region of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Missing $p_T$ pre-fit distribution for selected events in the $WW$ control region of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Dilepton $p_T$ pre-fit distribution for selected events in the $WW$ control region of the di-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Minimum $p_T$ of the visible particles divided by the missing $p_T$, for selected events in the top control region of the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between jets, for selected events in the top control region of the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between the lepton and missing $p_T$, for selected events in the $W$+jets control region of the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the $\Delta \phi$ angle between the lepton and the dijet system, for selected events in the $W$+jets control region of the semi-leptonic channel for the full dataset. The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the data, and the error bars on the predicted yields represent the combined systematic and statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$. The last bin includes the overflow.

Unrolled $m_{ll}-m_{T}^{l min, p_{T}^{miss}}$ post-fit distributions in the di-leptonic channel in SR1 for the full data set. The histogram bins are spaced uniformly. Each group of five bins (from left to right) corresponds to $m_{T}^{l min, p_{T}^{miss}}$ distribution in a $m_{ll}$ region, placed in ascending order. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$.

Unrolled $m_{ll}-m_{T}^{l min, p_{T}^{miss}}$ post-fit distributions in the di-leptonic channel in SR2 for the full data set. The histogram bins are spaced uniformly. Each group of five bins (from left to right) corresponds to $m_{T}^{l min, p_{T}^{miss}}$ distribution in a $m_{ll}$ region, placed in ascending order. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$.

Unrolled $m_{ll}-m_{T}^{l min, p_{T}^{miss}}$ post-fit distributions in the di-leptonic channel in SR3 for the full data set. The histogram bins are spaced uniformly. Each group of five bins (from left to right) corresponds to $m_{T}^{l min, p_{T}^{miss}}$ distribution in a $m_{ll}$ region, placed in ascending order. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_s = 160 GeV, m_{\chi} = 100 GeV, m_{Z'} = 500 GeV$.

Post-fit BDT distributions in the semi-leptonic channel for the full data set in the top control region. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_{s} = 160$ GeV, $m_{\chi} = 100$ GeV, $m_{Z'} = 500$ GeV

Post-fit BDT distributions in the semi-leptonic channel for the full data set in the $W$+jets control region. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_{s} = 160$ GeV, $m_{\chi} = 100$ GeV, $m_{Z'} = 500$ GeV

Post-fit BDT distributions in the semi-leptonic channel in the 2016 signal region. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_{s} = 160$ GeV, $m_{\chi} = 100$ GeV, $m_{Z'} = 500$ GeV

Post-fit BDT distributions in the semi-leptonic channel in the 2017+2018 signal region. The signal prediction represents the mass point: $m_{s} = 160$ GeV, $m_{\chi} = 100$ GeV, $m_{Z'} = 500$ GeV

Contour of the 95% CL observed upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 100 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected + 2 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 100 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected + 1 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 100 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 100 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected - 1 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 100 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected - 2 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 100 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL observed upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 150 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected + 2 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 150 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected + 1 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 150 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 150 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected - 1 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 150 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected - 2 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 150 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL observed upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 200 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected + 2 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 200 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected + 1 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 200 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 200 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected - 1 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 200 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected - 2 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 200 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL observed upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 300 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected + 2 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 300 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected + 1 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 300 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 300 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected - 1 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 300 GeV$.

Contour of the 95% CL expected - 2 std. upper limits representing $\sigma / \sigma_{theory} = 1$ for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 300 GeV$.

The $\sigma / \sigma_{theory}$ 95% CL upper limit values for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 100 GeV$.

The $\sigma / \sigma_{theory}$ 95% CL upper limit values for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 150 GeV$.

The $\sigma / \sigma_{theory}$ 95% CL upper limit values for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 200 GeV$.

The $\sigma / \sigma_{theory}$ 95% CL upper limit values for the dark Higgs model in the ($m_{s}$, $m_{Z'}$) plane for $m_{\chi} = 300 GeV$.

Observed $2 \Delta NLL$ of a 2D scan for $c^{-}_{\varphi Q}$ and $c_{\varphi t}$ with the other WCs profiled.

Observed $2 \Delta NLL$ of a 2D scan for $c_{tG}$ and $c_{t\varphi}$ with the other WCs profiled.

Observed $2 \Delta NLL$ of a 2D scan for $c^{1}_{Qt}$ and $c^{8}_{Qt}$ with the other WCs profiled.

Observed $2 \Delta NLL$ of a 2D scan for $c^{1}_{QQ}$ and $c^{8}_{Qt}$ with the other WCs profiled.

Observed $2 \Delta NLL$ of a 2D scan for $c^{1}_{Qt}$ and $c^{1}_{tt}$ with the other WCs profiled.

Observed $2 \Delta NLL$ of a 2D scan for $c^{1}_{QQ}$ and $c^{1}_{Qt}$ with the other WCs profiled.

Left pannel. The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 2.3%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average for $p_T > 18$ GeV. For comparison, the LHCb measurement [10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.122002] is also shown. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (2.3%)

Left pannel. The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 2.3%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average for $p_T > 18$ GeV. For comparison, the LHCb measurement [10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.122002] is also shown. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (2.3%)

Left pannel. The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 2.3%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average for $p_T > 18$ GeV. For comparison, the LHCb measurement [10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.122002] is also shown. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (2.3%)

Right pannel. The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 2.3%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average for $p_T > 18$ GeV. For comparison, the LHCb measurement [10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.122002] is also shown. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (2.3%)

Right pannel. The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 2.3%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average for $p_T > 18$ GeV. For comparison, the LHCb measurement [10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.122002] is also shown. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (2.3%)

Right pannel. The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 2.3%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average for $p_T > 18$ GeV. For comparison, the LHCb measurement [10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.122002] is also shown. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (2.3%)

Left panel.The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 4.9\%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average of all the points. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (4.9%)

Left panel.The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 5.7%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average of all the points. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (5.7%)

Left panel.The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 5.7%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average of all the points. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (5.7%)

Right panel.The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 4.9\%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average of all the points. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (4.9%)

Right panel.The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 5.7%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average of all the points. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (5.7%)

Right panel.The vertical bars (boxes) represent the statistical (bin-to-bin systematic) uncertainties, while the horizontal bars give the bin widths. The global uncertainty (of 5.7%) is not graphically represented. The blue line represents the average of all the points. $ 12 < \mathrm{B} \, p_T < 70$ GeV and $ 0 < |y| < 2.4 $. Global uncertanties are not included in the table (5.7%)

The signal cross-sections values of the signal QBH RS1 with n=1 extra dimensions, as a function of threshold mass

The product of acceptance and selection efficiency for QBH ADD model, as a function of threshold mass of the signal.

The product of acceptance and selection efficiency for QBH RS1 models, as a function of threshold mass of the signal.

The product of acceptance and selection efficiency for q* signal, as a function of resonance mass

The product of acceptance and selection efficiency for b* signal, as a function of resonance mass of the signal.

Distributions of the γ+jet invariant mass generated from various signal samples for reconstructed mass 4 TeV

Fitting distribution of data with expected q*, and QBH signal events, and fit parameters p0= 3.05674e+00, p1 = 10.5343, p3 = 4.15163 and p4 = 0.107405

Fitting distribution of data with expected b* events, and fit parameters p0= 1.45055e+03, p1 = 2.04830e+01, p3 = -4.16760e-01 and p4 = -5.07768e-01

Fitting distribution of data with expected b* events for 0btag category, and fit parameters p0= 2.44120e+00, p1 = 1.08886e+01, p3 = 4.23198e+00 and p4 = 1.16300e-01

Exclusion limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for q* signal coupling f = 1.0, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.

Theoretical cross-section of q* signal for coupling multiplier f =1.0

Exclusion limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for the q* signal coupling f = 0.5, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.

Theoretical cross-section of q* signal for coupling multiplier f =0.5

Exclusion limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for q* coupling f = 0.1, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.

Theoretical cross-section of q* signal for coupling multiplier f =0.1

Exclusion limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for b* signal coupling f = 1.0, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.

Theoretical cross-section of b* signal for coupling multiplier f =1.0

Exclusion limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for b* signal coupling f = 0.5, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.

Theoretical cross-section of b* signal for coupling multiplier f =0.5

Exclusion limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for b* signal coupling f = 0.1, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis.

Theoretical cross-section of b* signal for coupling multiplier f =0.1

Exclusion limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for QBH ADD signal, as a function of the mass hypothesis.

Theoretical cross-section of ADD signal

Exclusion limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for QBH RS1 signal, as a function of the mass hypothesis.

Theoretical cross-section of RS1 signal

The expected and observed exclusion mass limits for q* and b* signals, as a function coupling multiplier

The observed exclusion mass limits for b* signal, as a function of threshold mass of the signal.

Measured ratio of $\mathcal{B}_{4\mu}/\mathcal{B}_{2\mu}$

Measured branching fraction $\mathcal{B}_{4\mu}$

Measured branching fraction $\mathcal{B}_{4\mu}$

Postfit distributions of $S_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{MET}$ in the $\mathrm{e}\mu$ channel of the $\geq$1b category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width. The last bin includes the overflow.

Postfit distributions of $S_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{MET}$ in the $\ell\tau_\mathrm{h}$ channel of the 0b category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width. The last bin includes the overflow.

Postfit distributions of $S_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{MET}$ in the $\ell\tau_\mathrm{h}$ channel of the $\geq$1b category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width. The last bin includes the overflow.

Postfit distributions of $S_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{MET}$ in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}\tau_\mathrm{h}$ channel of the 0b category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width. The last bin includes the overflow.

Postfit distributions of $S_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{MET}$ in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}\tau_\mathrm{h}$ channel of the $\geq$1b category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width. The last bin includes the overflow.

Postfit distributions of $\chi$ in the $\mathrm{e}\mu$ channel of the 0j, $400 < m_\mathrm{vis} < 600\,\mathrm{GeV}$ category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width.

Postfit distributions of $\chi$ in the $\mathrm{e}\mu$ channel of the 0j, $m_\mathrm{vis} > 600\,\mathrm{GeV}$ category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width.

Postfit distributions of $\chi$ in the $\ell\tau_\mathrm{h}$ channel of the 0j, $400 < m_\mathrm{vis} < 600\,\mathrm{GeV}$ category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width.

Postfit distributions of $\chi$ in the $\ell\tau_\mathrm{h}$ channel of the 0j, $m_\mathrm{vis} > 600\,\mathrm{GeV}$ category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width.

Postfit distributions of $\chi$ in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}\tau_\mathrm{h}$ channel of the 0j, $400 < m_\mathrm{vis} < 600\,\mathrm{GeV}$ category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width.

Postfit distributions of $\chi$ in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}\tau_\mathrm{h}$ channel of the 0j, $m_\mathrm{vis} > 600\,\mathrm{GeV}$ category for the combined 2016-2018 data set after a simultaneous fit of the background and vector LQ signal to the data. The number of events in each bin are divided by the respective bin width.

Exclusion limits on the total cross section of a scalar LQ as a function of LQ mass under the assumption of exclusive LQ couplings to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Exclusion limits on the total cross section of a vector LQ as a function of LQ mass under the assumption of exclusive LQ couplings to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Exclusion limits on the mass of a scalar LQ as a function of the coupling strength $\lambda$ under the assumption of exclusive LQ couplings to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Exclusion limits on the mass of a vector LQ as a function of the coupling strength $\lambda$ under the assumption of exclusive LQ couplings to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Exclusion limits on the coupling strength $\lambda$ of a scalar LQ as a function of the LQ mass under the assumption of exclusive LQ couplings to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Exclusion limits on the coupling strength $\lambda$ of a vector LQ as a function of the LQ mass under the assumption of exclusive LQ couplings to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Inclusive cross section predictions up to QCD NNLO accuracy using the NNPDF3.1 PDF set

Measured production cross sections ratio $\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ / $\sigma(W^- + c)$

Predictions for the cross sections ratio $\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ / $\sigma(W^- + c)$ at QCD NLO accuracy from MCFM using different PDF sets

Predictions for the cross sections ratio $\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ / $\sigma(W^- + c)$ up to QCD NNLO accuracy using the NNPDF3.1 PDF set

Measured diferential cross sections $\sigma(W^- + c) + \sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ as a function of the absolute value of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the particle level.

Measured diferential cross sections as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the particle level.

Measured diferential cross sections $\sigma(W^- + c) + \sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ as a function of the absolute value of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the parton level.

Measured diferential cross sections as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the parton level.

Measured diferential cross sections ratio $R=\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c}) / \sigma(W^- + c)$ as a function of the absolute value of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W decay.

Measured diferential cross sections ratio $R=\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c}) / \sigma(W^- + c)$ as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay.

Measured min-$d_{xy}$ distribution in the 2-match category, after requiring the $d_{xy}$ muon to pass the isolation requirement $I_{\mathrm{rel}}^{\mathrm{PF}} <0.25$ (i. e., the B and D bins of the ABCD plane). Overlaid with a red histogram is the background predicted from the region of the ABCD plane failing the same requirement (the A and C bins), as well as three signal benchmark hypotheses (as defined in the legends), assuming $\alpha_D = \alpha_{\mathrm{EM}}$ (the fine-structure constant). The red hatched bands correspond to the background prediction uncertainty. The last bin includes the overflow.

Two-dimensional exclusion surfaces for $\Delta = 0.1 \, m_1$ as a function of the DM mass $m_1$ and the signal strength $y$, with $m_{A'} = 3 \, m_1$. Filled histograms denote observed limits on $\sigma(\mathrm{pp} \to A' \to \chi_2 \chi_1) \, \mathcal{B}(\chi_2 \to \chi_1 \mu^+ \mu^-)$. Solid (dashed) curves denote the observed (expected) exclusion limits at 95% CL, with 68% CL uncertainty bands around the expectation. Regions above the curves are excluded, depending on the $\alpha_D$ hypothesis: $\alpha_{\mathrm{D}} = \alpha_{\mathrm{EM}}$ (dark blue) or 0.1 (light magenta).

Two-dimensional exclusion surfaces for $\Delta = 0.4 \, m_1$ as a function of the DM mass $m_1$ and the signal strength $y$, with $m_{A'} = 3 \, m_1$. Filled histograms denote observed limits on $\sigma(\mathrm{pp} \to A' \to \chi_2 \chi_1) \, \mathcal{B}(\chi_2 \to \chi_1 \mu^+ \mu^-)$. Solid (dashed) curves denote the observed (expected) exclusion limits at 95% CL, with 68% CL uncertainty bands around the expectation. Regions above the curves are excluded, depending on the $\alpha_D$ hypothesis: $\alpha_{\mathrm{D}} = \alpha_{\mathrm{EM}}$ (dark blue) or 0.1 (light magenta).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feynman diagrams of $\mathrm{Z'}\to\mu^{-}\mu^{+}$ with a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson produced via $\mathrm{s}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\to\mathrm{Z'}$, with one $\mathrm{b}$ quark and one $\overline{\mathrm{s}}$ quark in the final state.

Distribution of $\min(m_{\mu\mathrm{b}})$ as obtained from simulation in events with $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 1$ passing all the other selection requirements. In this search, we require $\min(m_{\mu\mathrm{b}})>175~\mathrm{GeV}$. The stacked histogram displays the expected distribution from the simulation of the SM backgrounds, while the overlaid open histograms illustrate the size and shape of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ contribution from the LFU model described in Eq. (1), for several $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass hypotheses. For illustrative purposes, we choose couplings $|g_{\ell}| = |g_{\nu}| = |g_{\mathrm{b}}| = 0.03$ and $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$. The contribution of background processes other than DY and $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ is so small that it is only barely visible at the bottom of the stacked histogram. The hatched region indicates the statistical uncertainty arising from the limited size of the SM simulated samples. Histograms are normalized to unit area.

Distributions of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in the $N_{\mathrm{b}}=1$ event category. The stacked histogram displays the expected distribution from the SM background simulation. The overlaid open distributions illustrate the $\mathrm{Z'}$ contribution from the LFU model at $|g_{\ell}| = |g_{\nu}| = |g_{\mathrm{b}}| = 0.03$ and $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ for a variety of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass hypotheses. The observed data are shown as black points with statistical error bars. The hatched region indicates the statistical uncertainty arising from the limited size of the SM simulated samples. The size of the bins increases as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$. In extracting the results of the search, the background is estimated directly from data, so the SM background simulation is only illustrative in these distributions.

Distributions of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in the $N_{\mathrm{b}}\geq 2$ event category. The stacked histogram displays the expected distribution from the SM background simulation. The overlaid open distributions illustrate the $\mathrm{Z'}$ contribution from the LFU model at $|g_{\ell}| = |g_{\nu}| = |g_{\mathrm{b}}| = 0.03$ and $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ for a variety of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass hypotheses. The observed data are shown as black points with statistical error bars. The hatched region indicates the statistical uncertainty arising from the limited size of the SM simulated samples. The size of the bins increases as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$. In extracting the results of the search, the background is estimated directly from data, so the SM background simulation is only illustrative in these distributions.

Invariant mass $m_{\mu\mu}$ distributions in the $N_{\mathrm{b}} = 1$ category, shown together with the corresponding selected background functional forms used as input to the $discrete~profiling$ method when probing the $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$ hypothesis. The expected signal distribution for the LFU model described in Eq. (1), with couplings $|g_{\ell}| = |g_{\nu}| = |g_{\mathrm{b}}| = 0.03$ and $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$, is overlaid. The displayed mass range corresponds to the fit window used for this $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ hypothesis, which is $\pm 10\, \sigma_{\mathrm{mass}}$ around the probed $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ value. While the likelihood fits are performed on unbinned data, here we present the data in binned histograms with binning chosen to reflect the size of $\sigma_{\mathrm{mass}}$.

Invariant mass $m_{\mu\mu}$ distributions in the $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 2$ category, shown together with the corresponding selected background functional forms used as input to the $discrete~profiling$ method when probing the $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$ hypothesis. The expected signal distribution for the LFU model described in Eq. (1), with couplings $|g_{\ell}| = |g_{\nu}| = |g_{\mathrm{b}}| = 0.03$ and $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$, is overlaid. The displayed mass range corresponds to the fit window used for this $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ hypothesis, which is $\pm 10\, \sigma_{\mathrm{mass}}$ around the probed $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ value. While the likelihood fits are performed on unbinned data, here we present the data in binned histograms with binning chosen to reflect the size of $\sigma_{\mathrm{mass}}$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL on the number of selected BSM events with $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 1$ as functions of $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ for $f_{2\mathrm{b}}=0$. The quantity $f_{2\mathrm{b}}$ is the fraction of BSM events passing the analysis selection that have at least two $\mathrm{b}$ quark jets. The solid black (dashed red) curve represents the observed (median expected) exclusion. The inner green (outer yellow) band indicates the region containing $68~(95)\%$ of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL on the number of selected BSM events with $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 1$ as functions of $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ for $f_{2\mathrm{b}}=0.25$. The quantity $f_{2\mathrm{b}}$ is the fraction of BSM events passing the analysis selection that have at least two $\mathrm{b}$ quark jets. The solid black (dashed red) curve represents the observed (median expected) exclusion. The inner green (outer yellow) band indicates the region containing $68~(95)\%$ of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL on the number of selected BSM events with $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 1$ as functions of $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ for $f_{2\mathrm{b}}=0.75$. The quantity $f_{2\mathrm{b}}$ is the fraction of BSM events passing the analysis selection that have at least two $\mathrm{b}$ quark jets. The solid black (dashed red) curve represents the observed (median expected) exclusion. The inner green (outer yellow) band indicates the region containing $68~(95)\%$ of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL on the number of selected BSM events with $N_{\mathrm{b}} \geq 1$ as functions of $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ for $f_{2\mathrm{b}}=1$. The quantity $f_{2\mathrm{b}}$ is the fraction of BSM events passing the analysis selection that have at least two $\mathrm{b}$ quark jets. The solid black (dashed red) curve represents the observed (median expected) exclusion. The inner green (outer yellow) band indicates the region containing $68~(95)\%$ of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

Observed (solid) and median expected (dashed) exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution, marked by the dotted curves. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}=0$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed (solid) and median expected (dashed) exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution, marked by the dotted curves. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=350~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=700~\mathrm{GeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The exclusion limits are given up to coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The enclosed regions are excluded.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{b}}|$--$|g_{\ell}|$ plane for the LFU model, with $|\delta_{\mathrm{bs}}|=0.25$ and $|g_{\nu}|=|g_{\ell}|$, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width is equal to half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. Beyond these coupling values, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$. The solid black (dashed red) curves represent the observed (median expected) exclusions. The dotted curves denote the coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The region enclosed between the solid black (dashed red) and dotted curves is (expected to be) excluded. The dotted curve for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$ lies beyond the displayed $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ range and is, therefore, not shown. The shaded blue area represents the region preferred from the global fit in JHEP 04 (2023) 033 at $95\%$ CL. The region above the green dash-dotted curve is incompatible at $95\%$ CL with the measurement of the mass difference between the mass eigenstates of the neutral $\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}$ mesons.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=500~\mathrm{GeV}$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The solid black (dashed red) curves represent the observed (median expected) exclusions. The dotted curves denote the coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The region enclosed between the solid black (dashed red) and dotted curves is (expected to be) excluded. The shaded blue area represents the region preferred from the global fit in JHEP 04 (2023) 033 at $95\%$ CL. The region above the green dash-dotted curve is incompatible at $95\%$ CL with the measurement of the mass difference between the mass eigenstates of the neutral $\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}$ mesons.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The solid black (dashed red) curves represent the observed (median expected) exclusions. The dotted curves denote the coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The region enclosed between the solid black (dashed red) and dotted curves is (expected to be) excluded. The shaded blue area represents the region preferred from the global fit in JHEP 04 (2023) 033 at $95\%$ CL. The region above the green dash-dotted curve is incompatible at $95\%$ CL with the measurement of the mass difference between the mass eigenstates of the neutral $\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}$ mesons.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=1.5~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The solid black (dashed red) curves represent the observed (median expected) exclusions. The dotted curves denote the coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The region enclosed between the solid black (dashed red) and dotted curves is (expected to be) excluded. The shaded blue area represents the region preferred from the global fit in JHEP 04 (2023) 033 at $95\%$ CL. The region above the green dash-dotted curve is incompatible at $95\%$ CL with the measurement of the mass difference between the mass eigenstates of the neutral $\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}$ mesons.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|\theta_{23}|$--$|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for $m_{\mathrm{Z'}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$--$m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for a fixed value of $\theta_{23}=0$. The solid black (dashed red) curve represents the observed (median expected) exclusion. The dotted curve denotes the coupling values at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid. The region enclosed between the solid black (dashed red) and the dotted curves is (expected to be) excluded. The shaded blue area represents the $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$ range preferred from a global fit in JHEP 04 (2023) 033 at $95\%$ CL.

Observed exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$--$m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for a fixed value of $\theta_{23}=0$.

Expected exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$--$m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for a fixed value of $\theta_{23}=0$.

Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL in the $|g_{\mathrm{Z'}}|$--$m_{\mathrm{Z'}}$ plane for the $B_{3}\!-\!L_{2}$ model from JHEP 04 (2023) 033, for a fixed value of $\theta_{23}=0$. The coupling values are shown at which the $\mathrm{Z'}$ width equals one half of the $\mu\mu$ invariant mass resolution. For larger values of the couplings, the narrow width approximation intrinsic to the search strategy is not considered valid.

$\Delta\phi$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 0-10% centrality

$\Delta\phi$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 30-40% centrality

1D $\Delta\eta$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 70-80% centrality

$\Delta\eta$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 0-40 $N_{trk}$

$\Delta\eta$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 120-150 $N_{trk}$

$\Delta\eta$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 270-300 $N_{trk}$

$\Delta\phi$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 0-40 $N_{trk}$

$\Delta\phi$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 120-150 $N_{trk}$

$\Delta\phi$ projection of balance function in low $p_{T}$ in 270-300 $N_{trk}$

The width of balance function in $<|\Delta\eta|>$ in low $p_{T}$ for PbPb collisions

Balance function width in low $p_{T}$ PbPb relative $<|\Delta\eta|>/<|\Delta\eta|>_{N_{ch}<65}$

The width of balance function in $<|\Delta\eta|>$ in low $p_{T}$ for pPb collisions

Balance function width in low $p_{T}$ in pPb relative $<|\Delta\eta|>/<|\Delta\eta|>_{N_{ch}<24}$

The width of the balance function in $<|\Delta\phi|>$ in low $p_{T}$ for PbPb collisions

Balance function width in low $p_{T}$ in PbPb for relative $<|\Delta\phi|>/<|\Delta\phi|>_{N_{ch}<65}$

The width of the balance function in $<|\Delta\phi|>$ in low $p_{T}$ for pPb collisions

Balance function width in low $p_{T}$ in pPb for relative $|\Delta\phi|/<|\Delta\phi|>_{N_{ch}<24}$

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 0-10% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 30-40% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 70-80% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 0-10% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 30-40% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 70-80% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for 0-40 $N_{trk}$

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for 120-150 $N_{trk}$

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for 270-300 $N_{trk}$

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 0-40

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 120-150

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in intermediate $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 270-300

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 0-10% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 30-40% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 70-80% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 0-10% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 30-40% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for 70-80% centrality

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 0-40

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 120-150

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\eta$ in high $p_{T}$ in pPb for $N_{trk}$ 270-300

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for $N_{trk}$ 0-40

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for $N_{trk}$ 120-150

Balance function projection as a function of $\Delta\phi$ in high $p_{T}$ in PbPb for $N_{trk}$ 270-300

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \eta$ with $N_{ch}$ for low $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \eta$ with $N_{ch}$ for intermediate $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \eta$ with $N_{ch}$ for high $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $p_{T}$ for low $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for intermediate $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for high $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \eta$ with $N_{ch}$ for low $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \eta$ with $N_{ch}$ for intermediate $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for high $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for low $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for intermediate $p_{T}$

Average width of the balance function in $\Delta \phi$ with $N_{ch}$ for high $p_{T}$

Differential cross section measurements in bins of pT4l (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of rapidity4l (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costheta1 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costheta1 (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costheta1 (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costheta2 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costheta2 (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costheta2 (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of phi (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of phi (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of phi (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of phi1 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of phi1 (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of phi1 (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costhetastar (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costhetastar (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of costhetastar (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of massZ1 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of massZ1 (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of massZ1 (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of massZ2 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of massZ2 (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of massZ2 (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of pTj1 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of pTHj (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of mHj (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of pTj2 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of mjj (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of absdetajj (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of dphijj (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of pTHjj (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of TCjmax (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of TBjmax (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of D0m (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of D0m (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of D0m (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of Dcp (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of Dcp (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of Dcp (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of D0hp (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of D0hp (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of D0hp (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of Dint (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of Dint (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of Dint (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of DL1 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of DL1 (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of DL1 (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of DL1Zg (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of DL1Zg (v4 (2e2mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of DL1Zg (v4 (4e+4mu))

Differential cross section measurements in bins of rapidity4l_pT4l (v3, bin 0)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of rapidity4l_pT4l (v3, bin 1)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of rapidity4l_pT4l (v3, bin 2)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of njets_pt30_eta4p7_pT4l (v3, bin 0)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of njets_pt30_eta4p7_pT4l (v3, bin 1)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of njets_pt30_eta4p7_pT4l (v3, bin 2)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of pTj1_pTj2 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of pT4l_pTHj (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of massZ1_massZ2 (v3)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of TCjmax_pT4l (v3, bin 0)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of TCjmax_pT4l (v3, bin 1)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of TCjmax_pT4l (v3, bin 2)

Differential cross section measurements in bins of TCjmax_pT4l (v3, bin 3)

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of absdetajj in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of TBjmax in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of massZ1 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of D0m in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of DL1 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of mass4l in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of pT4l in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of phi in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of pTHj in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of pTj1 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of mHj in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of pTHjj in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of DL1Zg in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of njets.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of pTj2 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of TCjmax in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of rapidity4l in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of costheta2 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of Dint in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of Dcp in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of phi1 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of costhetastar in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of D0hp in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of mjj in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of massZ2 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of costheta1 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of dphijj in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of massZ1 in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of Dint in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of DL1 in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of D0m in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of massZ2 in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of DL1Zg in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of Dcp in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of D0hp in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of phi in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of costheta2 in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of phi1 in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of costheta1 in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of costhetastar in v4.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of njets vs pt.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of rapidity4l vs pT4l in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of pTj1 vs pTj2 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of pT4l vs pTHj in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of massZ1 vs massZ2 in v3.

Correlations of higgs fiducial cross section in bins of TCjmax vs pT4l in v3.

The distribution of the BDT discriminants for the 2016--2018 data set for three different categories in the combined single-electron and single-muon channels. The three categories are defined by the number of resolved t tags ($N_\textrm{RT}$), b tags ($N_\textrm{b}$), and jets ($N_\textrm{j}$), selected as representative based on their sensitivity to signal. Here, $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}} + \geq 1 \textrm{b}$ refers to $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ events with at least one additional b jet, while $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}} + 0 \textrm{b}$ includes all other $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ events not produced in association with a boson. The TOP grouping contains single top quark production along with the other $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ processes not explicitly shown, and EW refers to events that contain W and Z bosons but no top quarks.

Measured signal strength ($\mu = \sigma_{\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}}/ \sigma_{\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}} ^{\textrm{SM}}$), corresponding cross section (in fb), and the expected and observed significance (in standard deviations) for $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production from all analysis channels. Uncertainties shown in this table are statistical and systematic uncertainties respectively. In this table, SSDL\&ML and OSDL (2016) represent results from EPJC 80 (2020) 75 and JHEP 11 (2019) 082 respectively.

The distribution of the BDT discriminants for the 2016--2018 data set for three different categories in the combined single-electron and single-muon channels. The three categories are defined by the number of resolved t tags ($N_\textrm{RT}$), b tags ($N_\textrm{b}$), and jets ($N_\textrm{j}$), selected as representative based on their sensitivity to signal. Here, $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}} + \geq 1 \textrm{b}$ refers to $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ events with at least one additional b jet, while $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}} + 0 \textrm{b}$ includes all other $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ events not produced in association with a boson. The TOP grouping contains single top quark production along with the other $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ processes not explicitly shown, and EW refers to events that contain W and Z bosons but no top quarks. The backgrounds and $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ signal (derived from the fit) are shown as a stacked histogram. The hatched bands correspond to the estimated total uncertainty after the fit. While the bins are shown to be equal width, they do not correspond to equal width in BDT value.

The distribution of the BDT discriminants for the full 2016--2018 data set in the all-hadronic channel. The SR category shown in this figure is defined by $N_\textrm{RT}=1$, $N_\textrm{BT} \geq 1$, HT > 1400 GeV. The background from QCD multijet and \ttbar production is derived from control regions in the data. Estimates for the \tttt signal and other backgrounds are shown using simulated samples.

The distribution of the BDT discriminants for the full 2016--2018 data set in the all-hadronic channel. The sample VR category shown is defined by $N_\textrm{RT}=1$, $N_\textrm{BT} \geq 1$, $H_T > 1400$ GeV. The background from QCD multijet and $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production is derived from control regions in the data. Estimates for the $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ signal and other backgrounds are shown using simulated samples. The hatched bands correspond to the estimated total uncertainty.

The distribution of the BDT discriminants for the full 2016--2018 data set in the all-hadronic channel. The SR category shown in this figure is defined by $N_\textrm{BT} \geq 2$, HT > 1100 GeV. The background from QCD multijet and \ttbar production is derived from control regions in the data. Estimates for the \tttt signal and other backgrounds are shown using simulated samples.

The distribution of the BDT discriminants for the full 2016--2018 data set in the all-hadronic channel. The sample VR category shown is defined by $N_\textrm{RT} \geq 2$, $H_T > 1100$ GeV. The background from QCD multijet and $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production is derived from control regions in the data. Estimates for the $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ signal and other backgrounds are shown using simulated samples. The hatched bands correspond to the estimated total uncertainty.

Expected and observed significance (in standard deviations) for $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production from each final state and the combination with previous CMS results (EPJC 80 (2020) 75 and JHEP 11 (2019) 082). The same-sign dilepton and multilepton (SSDL\&ML) final state results are from EPJC 80 (2020) 75.

The distribution of the BDT discriminants for the full 2016--2018 data set in the all-hadronic channel. The SR category shown in this figure is defined by $N_\textrm{RT}=1$, $N_\textrm{BT} \geq 1$, $H_T > 1400$ GeV. The background from QCD multijet and $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production is derived from control regions in the data. Estimates for the $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ signal and other backgrounds are shown using simulated samples. The hatched bands correspond to the estimated total uncertainty after the fit.

Measured signal strength ($\mu = \sigma_{\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}}/ \sigma_{\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}} ^{\textrm{SM}}$), corresponding cross section (in fb), and the expected and observed significance (in standard deviations) for $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production from all analysis channels. Uncertainties shown in this table are statistical and systematic uncertainties respectively. In this table, SSDL\&ML and OSDL (2016) represent results from EPJC 80 (2020) 75 and JHEP 11 (2019) 082 respectively.

The distribution of the BDT discriminants for the full 2016--2018 data set in the all-hadronic channel. The SR category shown in this figure is defined by $N_\textrm{RT} = 2$, $H_T > 1100$ GeV. The background from QCD multijet and $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production is derived from control regions in the data. Estimates for the $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ signal and other backgrounds are shown using simulated samples. The hatched bands correspond to the estimated total uncertainty after the fit.

Expected and observed significance (in standard deviations) for $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production from each final state and the combination with previous CMS results (EPJC 80 (2020) 75 and JHEP 11 (2019) 082). The same-sign dilepton and multilepton (SSDL\&ML) final state results are from EPJC 80 (2020) 75.

Measured signal strength ($\mu = \sigma_{\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}}/ \sigma_{\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}} ^{\textrm{SM}}$), corresponding cross section (in fb), and the expected and observed significance (in standard deviations) for $\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}\textrm{t}\bar{\textrm{t}}$ production from all analysis channels. This table shows production from each analysis channel in this Letter, the combination of those channels, the results from previously published results, and the full combination of all CMS 2016-2018 results.

Two dimensional observed likelihood profile scan as a function of mu_ggH and mu_qqH

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a spin-0 resonance $X\rightarrow HY\rightarrow \gamma\gamma bb$, as a function of Y mass, for X mass = 350 GeV. The $\pm1$ and $\pm2$ $\sigma$ uncertainty bands are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 7 of the publication.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a spin-0 resonance $X\rightarrow HY\rightarrow \gamma\gamma bb$, as a function of Y mass, for X mass = 400 GeV. The $\pm1$ and $\pm2$ $\sigma$ uncertainty bands are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 7 of the publication.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a spin-0 resonance $X\rightarrow HY\rightarrow \gamma\gamma bb$, as a function of Y mass, for X mass = 450 GeV. The $\pm1$ and $\pm2$ $\sigma$ uncertainty bands are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 7 of the publication.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a spin-0 resonance $X\rightarrow HY\rightarrow \gamma\gamma bb$, as a function of Y mass, for X mass = 500 GeV. The $\pm1$ and $\pm2$ $\sigma$ uncertainty bands are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 7 of the publication.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a spin-0 resonance $X\rightarrow HY\rightarrow \gamma\gamma bb$, as a function of Y mass, for X mass = 550 GeV. The $\pm1$ and $\pm2$ $\sigma$ uncertainty bands are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 7 of the publication.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a spin-0 resonance $X\rightarrow HY\rightarrow \gamma\gamma bb$, as a function of Y mass, for X mass = 600 GeV. The $\pm1$ and $\pm2$ $\sigma$ uncertainty bands are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 7 of the publication.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a spin-0 resonance $X\rightarrow HY\rightarrow \gamma\gamma bb$, as a function of Y mass, for X mass = 650 GeV. The $\pm1$ and $\pm2$ $\sigma$ uncertainty bands are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 7 of the publication.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a spin-0 resonance $X\rightarrow HY\rightarrow \gamma\gamma bb$, as a function of Y mass, for X mass = 700 GeV. The $\pm1$ and $\pm2$ $\sigma$ uncertainty bands are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 7 of the publication.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a spin-0 resonance $X\rightarrow HY\rightarrow \gamma\gamma bb$, as a function of Y mass, for X mass = 750 GeV. The $\pm1$ and $\pm2$ $\sigma$ uncertainty bands are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 7 of the publication.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a spin-0 resonance $X\rightarrow HY\rightarrow \gamma\gamma bb$, as a function of Y mass, for X mass = 800 GeV. The $\pm1$ and $\pm2$ $\sigma$ uncertainty bands are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 7 of the publication.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a spin-0 resonance $X\rightarrow HY\rightarrow \gamma\gamma bb$, as a function of Y mass, for X mass = 850 GeV. The $\pm1$ and $\pm2$ $\sigma$ uncertainty bands are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 7 of the publication.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a spin-0 resonance $X\rightarrow HY\rightarrow \gamma\gamma bb$, as a function of Y mass, for X mass = 900 GeV. The $\pm1$ and $\pm2$ $\sigma$ uncertainty bands are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 7 of the publication.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a spin-0 resonance $X\rightarrow HY\rightarrow \gamma\gamma bb$, as a function of Y mass, for X mass = 950 GeV. The $\pm1$ and $\pm2$ $\sigma$ uncertainty bands are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 7 of the publication.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a spin-0 resonance $X\rightarrow HY\rightarrow \gamma\gamma bb$, as a function of Y mass, for X mass = 1000 GeV. The $\pm1$ and $\pm2$ $\sigma$ uncertainty bands are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 7 of the publication.

Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma$B(pp→X→Y(bb)H) for combination as a function of m$_Y$.

Expected upper limits at 95% CL on the X → HH cross section as a function of mX from the combination of the three channels bbγγ, bbττ, and bbbb for an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb−1 with different assumptions on the systematic uncertainties.

Expected upper limits on the X → YH cross section times B(Y → bb) for mX ≤ 1000 GeV at 95 % CL as a function of m$_X$ and m$_Y$ from the combination of all considered channels projected to an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$^{-1}$. Systematic uncertainties according to the ”S2” scenario are assumed.

The total coherent $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$, measured in PbPb ultra-peripheral collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$ values used correspond to the center of each rapidity range. The theoretical uncertainties is due to the uncertainties in the photon flux.

The nuclear gluon suppression factor $R_{\mathrm{g}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$ as a function of Bjorken $x$ extracted from the CMS measurement of the coherent $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ photoproduction in PbPb ultra-peripheral collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The $x$ values are evaluated at the centers of their corresponding rapidity ranges. The theoretical uncertainties are due to the uncertainties in the photon flux and the impulse approximation model.

The nuclear gluon suppression factor $R_{\mathrm{g}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$ as a function of Bjorken $x$ extracted from the CMS measurement of the coherent $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ photoproduction in PbPb ultra-peripheral collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The $x$ values are evaluated at the centers of their corresponding rapidity ranges. The theoretical uncertainties are due to the uncertainties in the photon flux and the impulse approximation model.

The total covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The covariance matrix includes both the experimental and theoretical (photon flux) uncertainties. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

The photon flux values from STARLight as a function of rapidity, in different neutron multiplicity classes: 0n0n, 0nXn, and XnXn.

The experimental covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

The covariance matrix for the flux in the 0n0n neutron multiplicity class.

The theoretical (photon flux) covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

The covariance matrix for the flux in the 0nXn neutron multiplicity class.

The covariance matrix for the flux in the XnXn neutron multiplicity class.

The total covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The covariance matrix includes both the experimental and theoretical (photon flux) uncertainties. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

The experimental covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

The theoretical (photon flux) covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

Measured natural width

The measured inclusive ratio of production cross sections

Signal yields for two charge scenarios considered in the analysis, as well as their associated uncertainties.

Distribution of $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}}$ in the SR and the CR for the early 2016 data set, as well as for an FCP signal at a mass of 100 GeV and different charge scenarios. The vertical bars and the shaded area correspond to the statistical uncertainty in the SR and the CR, respectively. The p-value of the fit is 6%. The two lower panels show the ratio of the number of tracks observed in the CR (upper) and SR (lower), and the fit function. The vertical bars correspond to the uncertainty from statistical sources, while the shaded area shows the systematic uncertainty in the fit due to the choice of the fitting function and the binomial fit range as explained in low dE/dx the main text. Comparing with respect to the binomial fit starting at $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}} = 2$, and not $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}} = 1$, is needed to account for the fact that early 2016 data is more strongly affected low dE/dx by instrumental effects that widen the N hits distribution.

Distribution of $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}}$ in the SR and the CR for the late 2016 data set, as well as for an FCP signal at a mass of 100 GeV and different charge scenarios. The vertical bars and the shaded area correspond to the statistical uncertainty in the SR and the CR, respectively. The p-value of the fit is 78%. The two lower panels show the ratio of the number of tracks observed in the CR (upper) and SR (lower), and the fit function. The vertical bars correspond to the uncertainty from statistical sources, while the shaded area shows the systematic uncertainty in the fit due to the choice of the fitting function and the binomial fit range as explained in low dE/dx the main text.

Distribution of $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}}$ in the SR and the CR for the 2017 data set, as well as for an FCP signal at a mass of 100 GeV and different charge scenarios. The vertical bars and the shaded area correspond to the statistical uncertainty in the SR and the CR, respectively. The p-value of the fit is 65%. The two lower panels show the ratio of the number of tracks observed in the CR (upper) and SR (lower), and the fit function. The vertical bars correspond to the uncertainty from statistical sources, while the shaded area shows the systematic uncertainty in the fit due to the choice of the fitting function and the binomial fit range as explained in low dE/dx the main text.

Distribution of $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}}$ in the SR and the CR for the 2018 data set, as well as for an FCP signal at a mass of 100 GeV and different charge scenarios. The vertical bars and the shaded area correspond to the statistical uncertainty in the SR and the CR, respectively. The p-value of the fit is 9%. The two lower panels show the ratio of the number of tracks observed in the CR (upper) and SR (lower), and the fit function. The vertical bars correspond to the uncertainty from statistical sources, while the shaded area shows the systematic uncertainty in the fit due to the choice of the fitting function and the binomial fit range as explained in low dE/dx the main text.

Exclusion region (hatched) at 95% CL in the FCP charge-mass plane for the considered signal. The expected exclusion is shown with the associated 1 and 2 standard deviations $\sigma$ bands. Signal points at charges 0.9, 0.8, 2/3, 0.5, and 1/3 e are connected by straight lines to guide the eye. This is a conservative interpolation. Previous exclusions from CMS [Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 092008), JHEP 07 (2013) 122] as well as OPAL [Phys. Lett. B 572 (2003) 8] are given for comparison.

Dependence of the parameter $A$ on $(t_1, t_2)$.

Dependence of the parameter $R$ on $(t_1, t_2)$.

Dependence of the parameter $c$ on $(t_1, t_2)$.

Dependence of the parameter $R$ on the two scattered proton transverse momenta.

Correlation coefficients among values of best parameters for the two-channel model, in the case of the exponential parametrisation of the proton-pomeron form factor.

Correlation coefficients among values of best parameters for the two-channel model, in the case of the Orear-type parametrisation of the proton-pomeron form factor.

Correlation coefficients among values of best parameters for the two-channel model, in the case of the power-law parametrisation of the proton-pomeron form factor.

Post-fit distribution of the $M(ll)$ variable for the ultrahigh-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $M(ll)$ variable for the low-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '3l soft' signal region of the the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $M(ll)$ variable for the medium-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '3l soft' signal region of the the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(ll)$ variable for low-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(ll)$ variable for medium-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(ll)$ variable for high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(ll)$ variable for ultrahigh-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

2SS $\ell/{\geq}\,3\ell$ search: observed and expected yields across the SRs in category A, events with three light leptons of which at least two form an OSSF pair, after the requirement that the leading-lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ be greater than 30 GeV is applied.

2SS $\ell/{\geq}\,3\ell$ search: observed and expected yields across the SRs of the '${\geq}\ 3\ell$' search in category B, events with three light leptons and no OSSF pair, after the requirement that the leading-lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ be greater than 30 GeV is applied.

Wino-bino model: cross section limits in the model parameter space, for wino-like chargino-neutralino production in the WZ topology for the full parameter space.

Wino-bino model: cross section limits in the model parameter space, for wino-like chargino-neutralino production in the WZ topology for the compressed space.

Wino-bino model: cross section limits in the model parameter space, for wino-like chargino-neutralino production in the WH topology for the full parameter space.

Wino-bino model: cross section limits in the model parameter space, for wino-like chargino-neutralino production with mixed topology with equal branching fraction to WZ and WH.

Wino-bino model: exclusion contours from the individual and combined analyses targeting WZ topology for the full parameter space. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

Wino-bino model: exclusion contours from the individual and combined analyses targeting the corresponding compressed region. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

Wino-bino model: exclusion contours from the individual and combined analyses targeting the WH topology for the full parameter space. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

Wino-bino model: exclusion contours from the individual and combined analyses targeting combined contours for these two topologies. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

GMSB model: expected and observed cross section limits for the neutralino-neutralino production for the ZZ topology.

GMSB model: expected and observed cross section limits for the neutralino-neutralino production for the HH topology.

GMSB model: expected and observed cross section limits for the neutralino-neutralino production for the mixed topology with equal branching fraction to H and Z.

GMSB model: cross section limits for neutralino-neutralino production as a function of the NSLP mass and the branching fraction to the H boson for the combination of the searches.

GMSB model: exclusion limit for neutralino-neutralino production as a function of the NSLP mass and the branching fraction to the H boson for the combination of the searches along with the input searches. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

Cross section upper limit(s) in the mass plane of NLSP and LSP masses for the higgsino-bino model.

Mass plane cross section upper limit for direct slepton pair production, with observed and expected exclusion limits in the full mass plane from the combination.

Mass plane cross section upper limit for direct slepton pair production, with observed and expected exclusion limits in the compressed region from '2/3l' soft search.