Fitted event-level b-tagging selection efficiency as a function of the dijet invariant mass. The uncertainties are evaluated by propagating the uncertainties on the fit parameters to the fitted efficiency.

Distributions of $s_{\text{T}}$ in the single-tau one-bin SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $m_{\text{T}}(\tau)$ in the single-tau one-bin SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\Sigma m_{\text{T}}(b_{1,2})$ in the single-tau $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$-binned SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$ in the single-tau $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$-binned SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Observed event yields in data ('Observed') and expected event yields for SM background processes obtained from the background-only fit ('Total bkg.' and rows below) in the signal regions of the di-tau and single-tau channels. The quoted uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties and are truncated at zero yield. By construction, no $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) events can pass the selections in the single-tau channel. As the individual uncertainties are correlated, they do not add in quadrature to equal the total background uncertainty.

From left to right: upper limits at the 95% confidence level (CL) on the visible cross section ($\sigma_\text{vis}$) and on the number of signal events ($S_{\text{obs}}^{95}$). The third column ($S_{\text{exp}}^{95}$) shows the upper limit at the 95% CL on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and $\pm 1\,\sigma$ excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis ($\text{CL}_{b}$), the discovery $p$-value ($p(s=0)$) and the significance ($Z$). In the di-tau SR, where fewer events are observed than predicted by the fitted background estimate, the $p$-value is capped at 0.5.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for the minimal-coupling scenario. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for the minimal-coupling scenario. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for vector leptoquarks with additional gauge couplings. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for vector leptoquarks with additional gauge couplings. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the stop-stau signal model as a function of the masses of the top squark $m(\tilde{t}_{1})$ and of the tau slepton $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1})$. Expected and observed limits are shown for the present search in comparison to observed limits from previous ATLAS analyses based on data from Run-1 of the LHC at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV [Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016)] and on a partial dataset from Run 2 at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV [Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 032008]. The green band indicates the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments.

Exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the stop-stau signal model as a function of the masses of the top squark $m(\tilde{t}_{1})$ and of the tau slepton $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1})$. Expected and observed limits are shown for the present search in comparison to observed limits from previous ATLAS analyses based on data from Run-1 of the LHC at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV [Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016)] and on a partial dataset from Run 2 at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV [Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 032008]. The green band indicates the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ with charge $+2/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ with charge $+2/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ with charge $-1/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ with charge $-1/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the stop-stau signal model.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model with up-type leptoquarks.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model with down-type leptoquarks.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model with minimal coupling (MC).

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model with additional gauge couplings (YM).

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Post-fit $m_\text{T}(\gamma, E_\text{T}^\text{miss})$ distribution in the inclusive signal region for the dark-photon search with the 125 GeV mass $\mathcal{B}(H \to \gamma \gamma_\text{d})$ signal normalization set to zero. A $H \to \gamma \gamma_\text{d}$ decay signal is shown for two different mass hypotheses, 125 GeV and 500 GeV, and scaled to a $\mathcal{B}(H \to \gamma \gamma_\text{d})$ of 2% and 1%, respectively. Events with $m_\text{T}(\gamma, E_\text{T}^\text{miss})$ larger than the rightmost bin boundary are added to that bin.

The 95% CL upper limit on the Higgs boson production cross-section times branching ratio to $\gamma \gamma_\text{d}$ is shown for different VBF-produced scalar-mediator-mass hypotheses in the NWA. The theoretically predicted cross-section of a Higgs boson produced via VBF and with the $\mathcal{B}(H \to \gamma \gamma_\text{d}) =$ 5% is superimposed on the $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ NNLO QCD + NLO EW uncertainty band of the expected production cross-section limit.

Post-fit $m_\text{jj}$ distribution in the inclusive signal region. The Higgs boson invisible decay signal is scaled to a $\mathcal{B}_\text{inv}$ of 37%. Events with $m_\text{jj}$ larger than the rightmost bin boundary are added to that bin.

Post-fit $m_\text{jj}$ distribution in the one-lepton control region $W_{\ell \nu}^\gamma$ CR. Events with $m_\text{jj}$ larger than the rightmost bin boundary are added to that bin.

Post-fit $m_\text{T}$ distribution in the one lepton control region. Events with $m_\text{T}$ larger than the rightmost bin boundary are added to that bin.

Post-fit photon centrality distribution in the zero lepton signal plus control region with the $\mathcal{B}_\text{inv}$ signal normalization set to zero in the fit.

Post-fit photon $E_\text{T}$ distribution in the zero lepton signal region with the $\mathcal{B}_\text{inv}$ signal normalization set to zero in the fit.

Post-fit photon centrality distribution in the zero lepton signal plus control region resulting from the fit to the $m_\text{jj}$ distribution for EW $Z \gamma + \text{jets}$. The post-fit uncertainties include statistical, experimental, and theory contributions.

Post-fit photon $E_\text{T}$ distribution in the zero lepton signal region resulting from the fit to the $m_\text{jj}$ distribution for EW $Z \gamma + \text{jets}$. The post-fit uncertainties include statistical, experimental, and theory contributions.

Post-fit DNN output score distribution in the one lepton control region.

Yields for the EW $Z \gamma + \text{jets}$ process are shown after each selection along with relative and absolute signal acceptance efficiencies.

Yields for the 125 GeV Higgs boson with $\mathcal{B}_\text{inv.} =$ 1 signal produced by the vector boson fusion process in association with a final state photon are shown after each selection along with relative and absolute signal acceptance efficiencies.

Yields for the 125 GeV Higgs boson with $\mathcal{B}(H \to \gamma \gamma_\text{d}) =$ 1 signal produced by the vector boson fusion process are shown after each selection along with relative and absolute signal acceptance efficiencies.

Average timing distributions for SR data and the estimated background as determined by the background-only fit, in each of the five exclusive $\rho$ categories. For comparison, the expected timing shapes for a few different signal models are superimposed, with each model labeled by the values of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass and lifetime, as well as decay mode. To provide some indication of the variations in signal yield and shape, three signal models are shown for each of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decay modes, namely $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $H \tilde G$ and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $Z \tilde G$. The models shown include a rather low $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value of 135 GeV for lifetimes of either 2 ns or 10 ns, and a higher $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value which is near the 95% CL exclusion limit for each decay mode for a lifetime of 2 ns. Each signal model is shown with the signal normalization corresponding to a BR value of unity for the decay mode in question.

Average timing distributions for SR data and the estimated background as determined by the background-only fit, in each of the five exclusive $\rho$ categories. For comparison, the expected timing shapes for a few different signal models are superimposed, with each model labeled by the values of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass and lifetime, as well as decay mode. To provide some indication of the variations in signal yield and shape, three signal models are shown for each of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decay modes, namely $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $H \tilde G$ and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $Z \tilde G$. The models shown include a rather low $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value of 135 GeV for lifetimes of either 2 ns or 10 ns, and a higher $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value which is near the 95% CL exclusion limit for each decay mode for a lifetime of 2 ns. Each signal model is shown with the signal normalization corresponding to a BR value of unity for the decay mode in question.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 10 ns, in the H decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.

Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 10 ns, in the Z decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.

Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 2 ns, in the H decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.

Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 2 ns, in the Z decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.

Acceptance across the H decay mode signal grid, calculated using truth information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns).

Acceptance across the Z decay mode signal grid, calculated using truth information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns).

Efficiency across the H decay mode signal grid, calculated using reco information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns). Here, the numerator is the signal yield passing the reco selection and the denominator is the signal yield passing the truth selection.

Efficiency across the Z decay mode signal grid, calculated using reco information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns). Here, the numerator is the signal yield passing the reco selection and the denominator is the signal yield passing the truth selection.

The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded.

The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded.

The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded.

The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.85 for $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.85 for $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.85 for $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.85 for $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.75 for $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.75 for $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.75 for $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.75 for $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV are discarded.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 370 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 370 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 370 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 370 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 67 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 67 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 67 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 67 fb.

The number of data events observed in the 120 GeV < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window, the number of $HH$ signal events expected for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1 and for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 10, and events expected for single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. For the single Higgs boson, Rest includes VBF, $WH$, $tHqb$, and $tHW$. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in $HH$ signals and single Higgs boson background include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of data events observed in the 120 GeV < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window, the number of $HH$ signal events expected for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1 and for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 10, and events expected for single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. For the single Higgs boson, Rest includes VBF, $WH$, $tHqb$, and $tHW$. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in $HH$ signals and single Higgs boson background include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of data events observed in the 120 GeV < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window, the number of $HH$ signal events expected for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1 and for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 10, and events expected for single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. For the single Higgs boson, Rest includes VBF, $WH$, $tHqb$, and $tHW$. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in $HH$ signals and single Higgs boson background include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of data events observed in the 120 GeV < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window, the number of $HH$ signal events expected for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1 and for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 10, and events expected for single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. For the single Higgs boson, Rest includes VBF, $WH$, $tHqb$, and $tHW$. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in $HH$ signals and single Higgs boson background include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross section of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}= \lambda_{HHH}/\lambda^{\textrm{SM}}_{HHH}$. The expected constraints on $\kappa_{\lambda}$ are obtained with a background hypothesis excluding $pp \rightarrow HH$ production. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown. The theory prediction curve represents the scenario where all parameters and couplings are set to their SM values except for $\kappa_{\lambda}$. The uncertainty band of the theory prediction curve shows the cross-section uncertainty.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross section of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}= \lambda_{HHH}/\lambda^{\textrm{SM}}_{HHH}$. The expected constraints on $\kappa_{\lambda}$ are obtained with a background hypothesis excluding $pp \rightarrow HH$ production. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown. The theory prediction curve represents the scenario where all parameters and couplings are set to their SM values except for $\kappa_{\lambda}$. The uncertainty band of the theory prediction curve shows the cross-section uncertainty.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross section of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}= \lambda_{HHH}/\lambda^{\textrm{SM}}_{HHH}$. The expected constraints on $\kappa_{\lambda}$ are obtained with a background hypothesis excluding $pp \rightarrow HH$ production. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown. The theory prediction curve represents the scenario where all parameters and couplings are set to their SM values except for $\kappa_{\lambda}$. The uncertainty band of the theory prediction curve shows the cross-section uncertainty.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross section of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}= \lambda_{HHH}/\lambda^{\textrm{SM}}_{HHH}$. The expected constraints on $\kappa_{\lambda}$ are obtained with a background hypothesis excluding $pp \rightarrow HH$ production. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown. The theory prediction curve represents the scenario where all parameters and couplings are set to their SM values except for $\kappa_{\lambda}$. The uncertainty band of the theory prediction curve shows the cross-section uncertainty.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ratio ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties in the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence-level intervals.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ratio ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties in the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence-level intervals.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ratio ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties in the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence-level intervals.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ratio ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties in the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence-level intervals.

The number of events observed in the 120 < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window in data, the number of events expected for scalar resonance signals of masses $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV assuming a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ equal to the observed exclusion limits of Figure 15, and events expected for SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the signal-plus-background hypothesis. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in the resonant signals and the SM $HH$ and single-Higgs-boson backgrounds include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of events observed in the 120 < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window in data, the number of events expected for scalar resonance signals of masses $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV assuming a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ equal to the observed exclusion limits of Figure 15, and events expected for SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the signal-plus-background hypothesis. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in the resonant signals and the SM $HH$ and single-Higgs-boson backgrounds include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of events observed in the 120 < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window in data, the number of events expected for scalar resonance signals of masses $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV assuming a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ equal to the observed exclusion limits of Figure 15, and events expected for SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the signal-plus-background hypothesis. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in the resonant signals and the SM $HH$ and single-Higgs-boson backgrounds include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of events observed in the 120 < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window in data, the number of events expected for scalar resonance signals of masses $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV assuming a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ equal to the observed exclusion limits of Figure 15, and events expected for SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the signal-plus-background hypothesis. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in the resonant signals and the SM $HH$ and single-Higgs-boson backgrounds include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the production cross section of a narrow-width scalar resonance $X$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$ of the hypothetical scalar particle. The black solid line represents the observed upper limits. The dashed line represents the expected upper limits. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the production cross section of a narrow-width scalar resonance $X$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$ of the hypothetical scalar particle. The black solid line represents the observed upper limits. The dashed line represents the expected upper limits. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the production cross section of a narrow-width scalar resonance $X$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$ of the hypothetical scalar particle. The black solid line represents the observed upper limits. The dashed line represents the expected upper limits. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the production cross section of a narrow-width scalar resonance $X$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$ of the hypothetical scalar particle. The black solid line represents the observed upper limits. The dashed line represents the expected upper limits. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown.

Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties. The impact of the uncertainties is defined according to the statistical analysis described in Section 7. It corresponds to the relative variation of the expected upper limit on the cross section when re-evaluating the profile likelihood ratio after fixing the nuisance parameter in question to its best-fit value, while all remaining nuisance parameters remain free to float. The impact is shown in %. Only systematic uncertainties with an impact of at least 0.2% are shown. Uncertainties of the "Norm. + Shape" type affect both the normalization and the parameters of the functional form. The rest of the uncertainties affect only the yields.

Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties. The impact of the uncertainties is defined according to the statistical analysis described in Section 7. It corresponds to the relative variation of the expected upper limit on the cross section when re-evaluating the profile likelihood ratio after fixing the nuisance parameter in question to its best-fit value, while all remaining nuisance parameters remain free to float. The impact is shown in %. Only systematic uncertainties with an impact of at least 0.2% are shown. Uncertainties of the "Norm. + Shape" type affect both the normalization and the parameters of the functional form. The rest of the uncertainties affect only the yields.

Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties. The impact of the uncertainties is defined according to the statistical analysis described in Section 7. It corresponds to the relative variation of the expected upper limit on the cross section when re-evaluating the profile likelihood ratio after fixing the nuisance parameter in question to its best-fit value, while all remaining nuisance parameters remain free to float. The impact is shown in %. Only systematic uncertainties with an impact of at least 0.2% are shown. Uncertainties of the "Norm. + Shape" type affect both the normalization and the parameters of the functional form. The rest of the uncertainties affect only the yields.

Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties. The impact of the uncertainties is defined according to the statistical analysis described in Section 7. It corresponds to the relative variation of the expected upper limit on the cross section when re-evaluating the profile likelihood ratio after fixing the nuisance parameter in question to its best-fit value, while all remaining nuisance parameters remain free to float. The impact is shown in %. Only systematic uncertainties with an impact of at least 0.2% are shown. Uncertainties of the "Norm. + Shape" type affect both the normalization and the parameters of the functional form. The rest of the uncertainties affect only the yields.

Cutflow for nonresonant di-Higgs ggF signal sample, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for nonresonant di-Higgs ggF signal sample, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for nonresonant di-Higgs ggF signal sample, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for nonresonant di-Higgs ggF signal sample, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Comparison of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Comparison of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Comparison of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Comparison of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Fit results of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Fit results of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Fit results of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Fit results of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

The relative amount (purity) of expected events from SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production processes for each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b).

The relative amount (purity) of expected events from SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production processes for each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b).

The relative amount (purity) of expected events from SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production processes for each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b).

The relative amount (purity) of expected events from SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production processes for each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b).

The expected significance in each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b). The single Higgs boson processes and the di-photon continuum spectrum are considered as background.

The expected significance in each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b). The single Higgs boson processes and the di-photon continuum spectrum are considered as background.

The expected significance in each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b). The single Higgs boson processes and the di-photon continuum spectrum are considered as background.

The expected significance in each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b). The single Higgs boson processes and the di-photon continuum spectrum are considered as background.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf for the various ggF nonresonant di-Higgs categories. In each category, the spurious signal value ($n_{sp}$) and its ratio to the expected statistical error ($Z_{spur}$) from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf for the various ggF nonresonant di-Higgs categories. In each category, the spurious signal value ($n_{sp}$) and its ratio to the expected statistical error ($Z_{spur}$) from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf for the various ggF nonresonant di-Higgs categories. In each category, the spurious signal value ($n_{sp}$) and its ratio to the expected statistical error ($Z_{spur}$) from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf for the various ggF nonresonant di-Higgs categories. In each category, the spurious signal value ($n_{sp}$) and its ratio to the expected statistical error ($Z_{spur}$) from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf as function of the resonant di-Higgs signal mass. The spurious signal value and its ratio to the expected statistical error from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf as function of the resonant di-Higgs signal mass. The spurious signal value and its ratio to the expected statistical error from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf as function of the resonant di-Higgs signal mass. The spurious signal value and its ratio to the expected statistical error from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf as function of the resonant di-Higgs signal mass. The spurious signal value and its ratio to the expected statistical error from data are shown.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson ggF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson ggF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson ggF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson ggF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson VBF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson VBF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson VBF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson VBF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties on the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence level intervals. The best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.8^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.5}_{-2.4}(^{+7.3}_{-4.2})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The dashed curves represent values of the negative log-profile-likelihood where the Higgs boson branching fractions and the cross section of the production modes are varied as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$. In this case,the best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.7^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ and the expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.4}_{-2.5}(^{+7.3}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties on the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence level intervals. The best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.8^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.5}_{-2.4}(^{+7.3}_{-4.2})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The dashed curves represent values of the negative log-profile-likelihood where the Higgs boson branching fractions and the cross section of the production modes are varied as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$. In this case,the best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.7^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ and the expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.4}_{-2.5}(^{+7.3}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties on the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence level intervals. The best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.8^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.5}_{-2.4}(^{+7.3}_{-4.2})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The dashed curves represent values of the negative log-profile-likelihood where the Higgs boson branching fractions and the cross section of the production modes are varied as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$. In this case,the best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.7^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ and the expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.4}_{-2.5}(^{+7.3}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties on the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence level intervals. The best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.8^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.5}_{-2.4}(^{+7.3}_{-4.2})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The dashed curves represent values of the negative log-profile-likelihood where the Higgs boson branching fractions and the cross section of the production modes are varied as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$. In this case,the best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.7^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ and the expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.4}_{-2.5}(^{+7.3}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval.

Minimum BDT value of the events passing the selection criteria of the resonant search. The combined BDT score is formed using as coefficients $C_{1}$ = 0.65 and $C_{2}$ = 1 − $C_{1}$. The selection efficiency for the resonant $X \rightarrow HH$ signal is also shown.

Minimum BDT value of the events passing the selection criteria of the resonant search. The combined BDT score is formed using as coefficients $C_{1}$ = 0.65 and $C_{2}$ = 1 − $C_{1}$. The selection efficiency for the resonant $X \rightarrow HH$ signal is also shown.

Minimum BDT value of the events passing the selection criteria of the resonant search. The combined BDT score is formed using as coefficients $C_{1}$ = 0.65 and $C_{2}$ = 1 − $C_{1}$. The selection efficiency for the resonant $X \rightarrow HH$ signal is also shown.

Minimum BDT value of the events passing the selection criteria of the resonant search. The combined BDT score is formed using as coefficients $C_{1}$ = 0.65 and $C_{2}$ = 1 − $C_{1}$. The selection efficiency for the resonant $X \rightarrow HH$ signal is also shown.

Naming convention for the observables at different levels of the analysis. At the background-subtracted level the contributions of tracks from pile-up collisions and tracks from secondary vertices are subtracted. At the corrected level the tracking-efficiency correction (TEC) is applied. The observables at particle level are the analysis results.

The total pile-up scale-factor relative uncertainty parameterised in $\mu$ and $n_\text{trk,out}$ and expressed in percent.

The $\chi^2$ and NDF for measured normalised differential cross-sections obtained by comparing the different predictions with the unfolded data. Global($n_\text{ch},\Sigma_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$) denotes the scenario in which the covariance matrix is built including the correlations of systematic uncertainties between the two observables $n_{\text{ch}}$ and $\Sigma_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$

Normalised differential cross-section as a function of $n_\text{ch}$.

Normalised differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$.

Normalised double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$.

Normalised double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$.

Normalised double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$.

Normalised double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$.

Normalised double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n\text{ch}$ in $ n_\text{ch} \geq 80$.

The $\chi^2$ and NDF for the measured normalised differential cross-sections obtained by comparing the different predictions with the unfolded data. The values corresponding to the `Total' scenario are given. In this scenario, only uncertainties described in Section 8 of the paper are included, while the extra theory uncertainties defined in Section 9 are omitted.

The $\chi^2$ and NDF for the measured normalised differential cross-sections obtained by comparing the different predictions with the unfolded data. The values corresponding to the `De-correlate modelling' scenario are given. This scenario uses the detector covariance matrix, and adding modelling uncertainties, scale variations in the matrix element and parton shower as well as the $h_{\text{damp}}$ variation only to the diagonal elements of the covariance matrix.

The $\chi^2$ and NDF for measured absolute differential cross-sections obtained by comparing the different predictions with the unfolded data. Global($n_\text{ch},\Sigma_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$) denotes the scenario in which the covariance matrix is built including the correlations of systematic uncertainties between the two observables $n_{\text{ch}}$ and $\Sigma_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$

The $\chi^2$ and NDF for the measured absolute differential cross-sections obtained by comparing the different predictions with the unfolded data. The values corresponding to the `Total' scenario are given. In this scenario, only uncertainties described in Section 8 of the paper are included, while the extra theory uncertainties defined in Section 9 are omitted.

The $\chi^2$ and NDF for the measured normalised differential cross-sections obtained by comparing the different predictions with the unfolded data. The values corresponding to the `De-correlate modelling' scenario are given. This scenario uses the detector covariance matrix, and adding modelling uncertainties, scale variations in the matrix element and parton shower as well as the $h_{\text{damp}}$ variation only to the diagonal elements of the covariance matrix.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $n_\text{ch}$.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n\text{ch}$ in $ n_\text{ch} \geq 80$.

Covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $n_\text{ch}$ vs. $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the normalised double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $n_\text{ch}$ vs. $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the normalised differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $n_\text{ch}$ vs. $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical, systematic uncertainties, and uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} < 20$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $ 20 \leq n_\text{ch} < 40$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $40 \leq n_\text{ch} < 60$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $60 \leq n_\text{ch} < 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ in $n_\text{ch} \geq 80$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $n_\text{ch}$ vs. $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ vs. $n_\text{ch}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Global covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $n_\text{ch}$ and $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ at particle level, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties, but excluding uncertainties in the theoretical predictions.

Distribution of $m(e^{\pm},\mu^{\pm})_{\mathrm{lead}}$ in the electron-muon signal region after the background-only fit.

Distribution of $m(\mu^{\pm},\mu^{\pm})_{\mathrm{lead}}$ in the muon-muon signal region after the background-only fit.

Distribution of $m(\ell^{\pm},\ell^{\prime \pm})_{\mathrm{lead}}$ in the three-lepton signal region after the background-only fit.

Event yield in the four-lepton signal region after the background-only fit.

Two-lepton signal region weighted cutflows for electron-electron channel. Data and a few representative signal samples are presented alongside the main background contributions. Yield stands for the observed yield in data and the expected yields based on $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ for the signal and background samples. Top quark and multiboson process backgrounds are merged under the 'other' category.

Two-lepton signal region weighted cutflows for electron-muon channel. Data and a few representative signal samples are presented alongside the main background contributions. Yield stands for the observed yield in data and the expected yields based on $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ for the signal and background samples. Top quark and multiboson process backgrounds are merged under the 'other' category.

Two-lepton signal region weighted cutflows for muon-muon channel. Data and a few representative signal samples are presented alongside the main background contributions. Yield stands for the observed yield in data and the expected yields based on $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ for the signal and background samples. Top quark and multiboson process backgrounds are merged under the 'other' category.

Three-lepton signal region weighted cutflow for $\ell \ell \ell$ channel. Data and a few representative signal samples are presented alongside the main background contributions. Yield stands for the observed yield in data and the expected yields based on $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ for the signal and background samples. Top quark and multiboson process backgrounds are merged under the 'other' category.

Four-lepton signal region weighted cutflow for $\ell \ell \ell \ell$ channel. Data and a few representative signal samples are presented alongside the main background contributions. Yield stands for the observed yield in data and the expected yields based on $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ for the signal and background samples. Top quark, Drell-Yan, and multiboson process backgrounds are merged under the 'other' category.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{W-tagged}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b,E_{\mathrm{T}^{\mathrm{miss}}}}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $N_{\mathrm{W-tagged}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the hadronic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the leptonic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the leptonic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 0L regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 1L leptonic top regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 1L hadronic top regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

The efficiency for simulated VBF events to pass each analysis cut.

The efficiency for simulated VH events to pass each analysis cut.

The efficiency for simulated ttH events to pass each analysis cut.

The fractional contribution of each production mode to a given analysis region around the Higgs boson peak, defined as 105 < mJ < 140 GeV. The fraction is given with respect to the total signal yield in the analysis region in question.

Signal acceptance times efficiency within the fiducial volume used in the fiducial region.

Signal acceptance times efficiency for the STXS volumes in the differential measurement. Along with the pTH requirements shown, |yH | < 2 is required. For events with pTH < 300 GeV, the acceptance times efficiency is less than 0.1 × 10−2.

Event yields and associated uncertainties after the global likelihood fit in the pT(H) > 450 GeV fiducial region. The total background yield can differ from the sum of the individual components due to rounding.

Event yields and associated uncertainties after the global likelihood fit of the differential regions. The total background yield can differ from the sum of the individual components due to rounding. The five STXS volumes are labeled pT0–pT4 corresponding to pTH < 300 GeV, 300 – 450 GeV, 450 – 650 GeV, 650 – 1000 GeV, and > 1000 GeV, respectively. The pT0 event yield is constrained to its SM value within the theoretical and experimental uncertainties and free parameters act independently on the remaining four volumes.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi=125$~\GeV\ for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, ``MDT 1/2'' represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and ``L/S'' indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on ($\sigma / \sigma_{\text{SM}}) \times B$ for $m_\phi=125$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, RPC 1/2 represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, TGC 1 represents the first stations of TGC chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors. The dependence on detector geometry can be seen by looking at the various detector boundaries depicted by dashed lines in the plots. In the barrel the trigger efficiency increases when the LLP decays are close to the end of the hadronic calorimeter (r ~ 4 m) and substantially decreases as the decay occurs closer to the middle station of the muon spectrometer (r ~ 7 m). For decays occurring close to the middle station the charged hadrons and photons (and their EM showers) are not spatially separated, resulting in low efficiency (the same reasoning is applicable to decays in the endcap regions).

Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, RPC 1/2 represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, TGC 1 represents the first stations of TGC chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors. The dependence on detector geometry can be seen by looking at the various detector boundaries depicted by dashed lines in the plots. In the barrel the trigger efficiency increases when the LLP decays are close to the end of the hadronic calorimeter (r ~ 4 m) and substantially decreases as the decay occurs closer to the middle station of the muon spectrometer (r ~ 7 m). For decays occurring close to the middle station the charged hadrons and photons (and their EM showers) are not spatially separated, resulting in low efficiency (the same reasoning is applicable to decays in the endcap regions).

Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, RPC 1/2 represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, TGC 1 represents the first stations of TGC chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors. The dependence on detector geometry can be seen by looking at the various detector boundaries depicted by dashed lines in the plots. In the barrel the trigger efficiency increases when the LLP decays are close to the end of the hadronic calorimeter (r ~ 4 m) and substantially decreases as the decay occurs closer to the middle station of the muon spectrometer (r ~ 7 m). For decays occurring close to the middle station the charged hadrons and photons (and their EM showers) are not spatially separated, resulting in low efficiency (the same reasoning is applicable to decays in the endcap regions).

Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, RPC 1/2 represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, TGC 1 represents the first stations of TGC chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors. The dependence on detector geometry can be seen by looking at the various detector boundaries depicted by dashed lines in the plots. In the barrel the trigger efficiency increases when the LLP decays are close to the end of the hadronic calorimeter (r ~ 4 m) and substantially decreases as the decay occurs closer to the middle station of the muon spectrometer (r ~ 7 m). For decays occurring close to the middle station the charged hadrons and photons (and their EM showers) are not spatially separated, resulting in low efficiency (the same reasoning is applicable to decays in the endcap regions).

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of transverse decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of longitudinal decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of transverse decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of longitudinal decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on ($\sigma / \sigma_{\text{SM}}) \times B$ for $m_\phi=125$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on ($\sigma / \sigma_{\text{SM}}) \times B$ for $m_\phi=125$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on ($\sigma / \sigma_{\text{SM}}) \times B$ for $m_\phi=125$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=60$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=60$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=200$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=400$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=600$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=600$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=600$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=1000$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=1000$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=1000$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.