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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post-fit BDT score distribution for the direct stau channel, showing the scores for BDT4, before the selections on the BDT score is made. The black arrow depicts the BDT score selection for the SR-BDT. A few example SUSY scenarios targeted by each BDT are overlaid for illustration.

The post-fit kinematic distribution for the Intermediate stau channel, showing the $m_{\mathrm{T}2}$ distribution in SR-C1C1-LM, before the selection on $m_{\mathrm{T}2}$ is made. The black arrow depicts the selection for the signal region. An example SUSY scenario is overlaid for illustration.

The post-fit kinematic distribution for the Intermediate stau channel, showing the $m_{\mathrm{T}2}$ distribution in SR-C1N2OS-LM, before the selection on $m_{\mathrm{T}2}$ is made. The black arrow depicts the selection for the signal region. An example SUSY scenario is overlaid for illustration.

The post-fit kinematic distribution for the Intermediate stau channel, showing the $m_{\mathrm{T}2}$ distribution in SR-C1N2SS-LM, before the selection on $m_{\mathrm{T}2}$ is made. The black arrow depicts the selection for the signal region. An example SUSY scenario is overlaid for illustration.

The post-fit kinematic distribution for the Intermediate $Wh$ channel, showing the $m_{\mathrm{T}2}$ distribution in SR-Wh-LM, before the selection on $m_{\mathrm{T}2}$ is made. The black arrow depicts the selection for the signal region. An example SUSY scenario is overlaid for illustration.

The post-fit kinematic distribution for the Intermediate $Wh$ channel, showing the $m_{\mathrm{Tsum}}$ distribution in SR-Wh-HM, before the selection on $m_{\mathrm{Tsum}}$ is made. The black arrow depicts the selection for the signal region. An example SUSY scenario is overlaid for illustration.

Expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}$ production.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}$ production.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}$ production.

Observed 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}$ production.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}$ production.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}$ production.

Expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{L}\tilde{\tau}_{L}$ production.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{L}\tilde{\tau}_{L}$ production.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{L}\tilde{\tau}_{L}$ production.

Observed 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{L}\tilde{\tau}_{L}$ production.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{L}\tilde{\tau}_{L}$ production.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{L}\tilde{\tau}_{L}$ production.

Expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{R}\tilde{\tau}_{R}$ production.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{R}\tilde{\tau}_{R}$ production.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{R}\tilde{\tau}_{R}$ production.

Observed 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{R}\tilde{\tau}_{R}$ production.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{R}\tilde{\tau}_{R}$ production.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\tau}_{R}\tilde{\tau}_{R}$ production.

Expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{+}\tilde{\chi}_1^{-}$ production decaying via staus.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{+}\tilde{\chi}_1^{-}$ production decaying via staus.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{+}\tilde{\chi}_1^{-}$ production decaying via staus.

Observed 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{+}\tilde{\chi}_1^{-}$ production decaying via staus.

Expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via staus (parameterised as $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$).

$+1\sigma$ expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via staus (parameterised as $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$).

$-1\sigma$ expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via staus (parameterised as $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$).

Observed 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via staus (parameterised as $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$).

Expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via staus (parameterised as $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$) using the OS signal regions.

Observed 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via staus (parameterised as $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$) using the OS signal regions.

Expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via staus (parameterised as $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$) using the SS signal regions.

Observed 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via staus (parameterised as $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$) using the SS signal regions.

Expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via $Wh$ (parameterised as $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_2^0)-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$).

$+1\sigma$ expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via $Wh$ (parameterised as $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_2^0)-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$).

$-1\sigma$ expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via $Wh$ (parameterised as $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_2^0)-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$).

Observed 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via $Wh$ (parameterised as $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_2^0)-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$).

Expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via $Wh$ (parameterised as $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_2^0)-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$) using the OS signal regions.

Observed 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via $Wh$ (parameterised as $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_2^0)-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$) using the OS signal regions.

Expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via $Wh$ (parameterised as $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_2^0)-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$) using the SS signal regions.

Observed 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via $Wh$ (parameterised as $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_2^0)-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$) using the SS signal regions.

Expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via $Wh$.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via $Wh$.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via $Wh$.

Observed 95\% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ production decaying via $Wh$.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the production of $\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}$.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the production of $\tilde{\tau}_{L}\tilde{\tau}_{L}$.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the production of $\tilde{\tau}_{R}\tilde{\tau}_{R}$.

The best expected signal region used to set limits in models of the production of $\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}$.

The best expected signal region used to set limits in models of the production of $\tilde{\tau}_{L}\tilde{\tau}_{L}$.

The best expected signal region used to set limits in models of the production of $\tilde{\tau}_{R}\tilde{\tau}_{R}$.

The acceptance $A$ of the direct stau production signal region SR-BDT1 in models of the production of $\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}$.

The efficiency $\epsilon$ of the direct stau production signal region SR-BDT1 in models of the production of $\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}$.

The acceptance $A$ of the direct stau production signal region SR-BDT2 in models of the production of $\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}$.

The efficiency $\epsilon$ of the direct stau production signal region SR-BDT2 in models of the production of $\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}$.

The acceptance $A$ of the direct stau production signal region SR-BDT3 in models of the production of $\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}$.

The efficiency $\epsilon$ of the direct stau production signal region SR-BDT3 in models of the production of $\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}$.

The acceptance $A$ of the direct stau production signal region SR-BDT4 in models of the production of $\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}$.

The efficiency $\epsilon$ of the direct stau production signal region SR-BDT4 in models of the production of $\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}$.

Cutflow event yields of the direct stau production SRs in models of the production of $\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}\tilde{\tau}_{L,R}$. All yields correspond to weighted events, so that effects from reconstruction efficiencies, trigger corrections, pileup reweighting, etc., are included. They are normalised to the integrated luminosity of the data sample, $\int L dt = 139$ fb$^{-1}$. The preliminary event reduction is a centralised stage requiring the event to: have at least two hadronically-decaying taus; be selected and matched by the asymmetric ditau trigger (with plateau cuts); have at least two medium taus of opposite sign and have $m_{\mathrm{T2}} > 30$ GeV. Cuts except the BDT score cuts are applied consecutively, while the BDT score cuts are applied one at a time.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{+}\tilde{\chi}_1^{-}$.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$.

The acceptance $A$ of the Intermediate stau signal region SR-C1C1-LM in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{+}\tilde{\chi}_1^{-}$ decaying via staus.

The efficiency $\epsilon$ of the Intermediate stau signal region SR-C1C1-LM in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{+}\tilde{\chi}_1^{-}$ decaying via staus.

The acceptance $A$ of the Intermediate stau signal region SR-C1C1-HM in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{+}\tilde{\chi}_1^{-}$ decaying via staus.

The efficiency $\epsilon$ of the Intermediate stau signal region SR-C1C1-HM in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{+}\tilde{\chi}_1^{-}$ decaying via staus.

The acceptance $A$ of the Intermediate stau signal region SR-C1N2OS-LM in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$ decaying via staus.

The efficiency $\epsilon$ of the Intermediate stau signal region SR-C1N2OS-LM in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$ decaying via staus.

The acceptance $A$ of the Intermediate stau signal region SR-C1N2SS-LM in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$ decaying via staus.

The efficiency $\epsilon$ of the Intermediate stau signal region SR-C1N2SS-LM in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$ decaying via staus.

The acceptance $A$ of the Intermediate stau signal region SR-C1N2OS-HM in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$ decaying via staus.

The efficiency $\epsilon$ of the Intermediate stau signal region SR-C1N2OS-HM in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$ decaying via staus.

The acceptance $A$ of the Intermediate stau signal region SR-C1N2SS-HM in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$ decaying via staus.

The efficiency $\epsilon$ of the Intermediate stau signal region SR-C1N2SS-HM in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$ decaying via staus.

Cutflow event yields of the Intermediate stau SRs in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{+}\tilde{\chi}_1^{-}$. All yields correspond to weighted events, so that effects from reconstruction efficiencies, trigger corrections, pileup reweighting, etc., are included. They are normalised to the integrated luminosity of the data sample, $\int L dt = 139$ fb$^{-1}$. The preliminary event reduction is a centralised stage requiring the event to: have at least two hadronically-decaying medium taus; be selected and matched by the asymmetric ditau trigger or ditau+MET trigger with offline cuts using HLT threshold values. The different yields of preliminary event reduction are caused by different trigger scale factor.

Cutflow event yields of the Intermediate stau SRs in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$. All yields correspond to weighted events, so that effects from reconstruction efficiencies, trigger corrections, pileup reweighting, etc., are included. They are normalised to the integrated luminosity of the data sample, $\int L dt = 139$ fb$^{-1}$. The preliminary event reduction is a centralised stage requiring the event to: have at least two hadronically-decaying medium taus; be selected and matched by the asymmetric ditau trigger or ditau+MET trigger with offline cuts using HLT threshold values. The different yields of preliminary event reduction are caused by different trigger scale factor.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ decaying via $Wh$.

The best expected signal region used to set limits in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ decaying via $Wh$.

The acceptance $A$ of the Intermediate $Wh$ signal region SR-Wh-LM in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ decaying via $Wh$.

The efficiency $\epsilon$ of the Intermediate $Wh$ signal region SR-Wh-LM in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ decaying via $Wh$.

The acceptance $A$ of the Intermediate $Wh$ signal region SR-Wh-HM in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ decaying via $Wh$.

The efficiency $\epsilon$ of the Intermediate $Wh$ signal region SR-Wh-HM in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ decaying via $Wh$.

Cutflow event yields of the Intermediate $Wh$ SRs in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ decaying via $Wh$. All yields correspond to weighted events, so that effects from reconstruction efficiencies, trigger corrections, pileup reweighting, etc., are included. They are normalised to the integrated luminosity of the data sample, $\int L dt = 139$ fb$^{-1}$. The preliminary event reduction is a centralised stage requiring the event to: have one single lepton and two hadronically decaying medium taus; be selected and matched by the single lepton trigger with plateau cuts.

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.

The JEC, JER, and total systematic uncertainties in unfolded cross sections as functions of transverse momentum, for 1.5<|y|<2. The total systematic uncertainty includes also the luminosity, jet identification and trigger efficiency uncertainties.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for |y|<0.5, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 0.5<|y|<1, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 1<|y|<1.5, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 1.5<|y|<2, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for |y|<0.5. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 0.5<|y|<1. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 1<|y|<1.5. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 1.5<|y|<2. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

Unfolded correlation matrix for |y|<0.5.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 0.5<|y|<1.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 1<|y|<1.5.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 1.5<|y|<2.

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

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

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

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

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

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