Bayesian upper exclusion limits on the ratio $g_{W'}/g_{W}$ for an SSM-like W$\prime$ boson are shown. The unity coupling ratio (blue dotted curve) corresponds to the SSM common benchmark. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian lower exclusion limits on the NUGIM G(221) mixing angle $\cot(\theta_{E})$ are shown as a function of the W$\prime$ boson mass. The theoretically excluded region is shaded in grey. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of a QBH in an associated $ au$ lepton and neutrino final state. Minimum threshold masses $m_{th}$ of up to 6.6 TeV are excluded at 95% CL. The observed limit (solid line) is obtained from the intersection with the LO QBH cross section (blue dotted curve). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of the process $pp\rightarrow\tau\nu$ mediated via LQ exchange in the t-channel. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The predicted LQ cross section at LO in the three coupling benchmark scenarios is depicted in different colors for $g_{U}=1$. The uncertainty bandy correspond to the sum in quadrature of PDF and scale variations. The first benchmark scenario considers only couplings to left-handed SM fermions (i.e. $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$) and is referred to as "best fit LH". The second benchmark, referred to as "best fit LH+RH", considers $|\beta_{\text{R}}^{\text{b}\tau}|=1$ and all other $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$. In the third "democratic" benchmark, equal couplings only to LH fermions are assumed, i.e. $\beta_{\text{L}}^{ij}=1$ and $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$ for all $i$ and $j$.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH+RH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the democratic scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on each of the Wilson coefficients described by the EFT model based on 2016-2018 data. The three different coupling types represent a left-handed vector coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{L}$), tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{T}$), and scalar-tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{S_{L}}$). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Summary of exclusion limits (expected and observed) calculated at 95% CL for full Run-2 CMS data.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 4.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 4.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to 41.3 fb$^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement (cumulative) for various signal hypothesis. The requirements listed are presented as total efficiencies w.r.t. the previous selection step.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded inclusive leptonic asymmetry. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ < 500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [500,750] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [750,1000] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [1000,1500] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ > 1500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ < 30 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [30,120] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > 120 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 200 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [200,300] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [300,400] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 400 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 20 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [20, 70] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 70 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Distribution of $m_{T}(W)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $M_{3}$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $M_{3}$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $m(l,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $m(l,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $\Delta R(j,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $\Delta R(j,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured $m_{T}(W)$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $N_{jet}=2$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for electrons.

Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured $m_{T}(W)$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $N_{jet}=2$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for electrons.

Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured $m_{T}(W)$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $N_{jet}=2$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for muons.

Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured $m_{T}(W)$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $N_{jet}=2$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for muons.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(l,\gamma)$) in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for the e channel.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(l,\gamma)$) in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for the e channel.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(l,\gamma)$) in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for the $\mu$ channel.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(l,\gamma)$) in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for the $\mu$ channel.

Extracted scale factors for the contribution from misidentified electrons for the three data-taking periods, and the Z$\gamma$, W$\gamma$ simulations.

Extracted scale factors for the contribution from misidentified electrons for the three data-taking periods, and the Z$\gamma$, W$\gamma$ simulations.

Predicted and observed yields in the control regions in the $N_{jet}= 3$ and $\geq 4$ seletions using the post-fit values of the nuisance parameters.

Predicted and observed yields in the control regions in the $N_{jet}= 3$ and $\geq 4$ seletions using the post-fit values of the nuisance parameters.

Predicted and observed yields in the signal regions in the $N_{jet}= 3$ and $\geq 4$ seletions using the post-fit values of the nuisance parameters.

Predicted and observed yields in the signal regions in the $N_{jet}= 3$ and $\geq 4$ seletions using the post-fit values of the nuisance parameters.

The measured inclusive ttgamma cross section in the fiducial phase space compared to the prediction from simulation using Madgraph_aMC@NLO at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV.

The measured inclusive ttgamma cross section in the fiducial phase space compared to the prediction from simulation using Madgraph_aMC@NLO at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV.

Summary of the measured cross section ratios with respect to the NLO cross section prediction for signal regions binned in the electron channel, muon channel and the combined single lepton measurement.

Summary of the measured cross section ratios with respect to the NLO cross section prediction for signal regions binned in the electron channel, muon channel and the combined single lepton measurement.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $p_{T}(\gamma)$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $p_{T}(\gamma)$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $|\eta(\gamma)|$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $|\eta(\gamma)|$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$ and the comparison to simulations.

The covariance matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $p_{T}(\gamma)$.

The covariance matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $p_{T}(\gamma)$.

The covariance matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $|\eta(\gamma)|$.

The covariance matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $|\eta(\gamma)|$.

The covariance matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$.

The covariance matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$.

The covariance matrix of statistic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $p_{T}(\gamma)$.

The covariance matrix of statistic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $p_{T}(\gamma)$.

The covariance matrix of statistic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $|\eta(\gamma)|$.

The covariance matrix of statistic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $|\eta(\gamma)|$.

The covariance matrix of statistic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$.

The covariance matrix of statistic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$.

The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $p_{T}(\gamma)$.

The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $p_{T}(\gamma)$.

The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $|\eta(\gamma)|$.

The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $|\eta(\gamma)|$.

The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$.

The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$.

The correlation matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $p_{T}(\gamma)$.

The correlation matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $p_{T}(\gamma)$.

The correlation matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $|\eta(\gamma)|$.

The correlation matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $|\eta(\gamma)|$.

The correlation matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$.

The correlation matrix of systematic uncertainties for the unfolded differential measurement for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$.

Summary of the one-dimensional intervals at 68 and 95% CL.

Summary of the one-dimensional intervals at 68 and 95% CL.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR3 signal region for the electron channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR3 signal region for the electron channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR3 signal region for the muon channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR3 signal region for the muon channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR4p signal region for the electron channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR4p signal region for the electron channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR4p signal region for the muon channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR4p signal region for the muon channel.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional profiled scan for the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional profiled scan for the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional profiled scan for the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional profiled scan for the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the two-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the two-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$.

Correlation between the Wilson coefficients (in %), after the 5D fit to data.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The mjj distribution in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria in the e+e- channel. The various signal hypotheses displayed have been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The mjj distribution in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria in the e^{+/-}mu^{-/+} channel. The various signal hypotheses displayed have been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The mjj distribution in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria in the mu+mu- channel. The various signal hypotheses displayed have been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria, in the e+e− channel. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised resonant DNN output is evaluated at mX=400GeV. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria, in the e+e− channel. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised nonresonant DNN output is evaluated at \kappa_\lambda=1, \kappa_t=1. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria, in the e^{+/-}mu^{-/+} channel. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised resonant DNN output is evaluated at mX=400GeV. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria, in the e^{+/-}mu^{-/+} channel. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised nonresonant DNN output is evaluated at \kappa_\lambda=1, \kappa_t=1. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria, in the mu+mu− channel. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised resonant DNN output is evaluated at mX=400GeV. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events after requiring all selection criteria, in the mu+mu− channel. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised nonresonant DNN output is evaluated at \kappa_\lambda=1, \kappa_t=1. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events, for the e+e- channel, in three different mjj regions. The parameterised resonant DNN output is evaluated at mX=400GeV. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events, for the e+e- channel, in three different mjj regions. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised nonresonant DNN output is evaluated at \kappa_\lambda=1, \kappa_t=1. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events, for the e^{+/-}mu^{-/+} channel, in three different mjj regions. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised resonant DNN output is evaluated at mX=400GeV. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events, for the e^{+/-}mu^{-/+} channel, in three different mjj regions. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised nonresonant DNN output is evaluated at \kappa_\lambda=1, \kappa_t=1. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events, for the mu+mu- channel, in three different mjj regions. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised resonant DNN output is evaluated at mX=400GeV. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

The DNN output distributions in data and simulated events, for the mu+mu- channel, in three different mjj regions. Output values towards 0 are background-like, while output values towards 1 are signal-like. The parameterised nonresonant DNN output is evaluated at \kappa_\lambda=1, \kappa_t=1. The signal hypothesis has been scaled to a cross section of 5 pb for display purposes.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for X and branching fraction for X -> HH -> bbVV -> bblnulnu, as a function of mX. These limits are computed using the asymptotic CLs method, combining all channels, for the spin-0 hypothesis.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for X and branching fraction for X -> HH -> bbVV -> bblnulnu, as a function of mX. These limits are computed using the asymptotic CLs method, combining all channels, for the spin-2 hypothesis.

expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the Higgs boson pair production cross section and branching fraction for HH -> bbVV -> bblnulnu as a function of kappa_top/kappa_lambda.

Exclusions in the (\kappa_top, \kappa_\lambda) plane. Parameters excluded at 95% CL with the observed data, and expected exclusions and the 68 and 95% bands.

Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane.

Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the observed limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses obtained by comparing the excluded cross section with theoretical cross sections.

Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the observed limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses obtained by comparing the excluded cross section with $+1\sigma$ theoretical cross sections.

Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the observed limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses obtained by comparing the excluded cross section with $-1\sigma$ theoretical cross sections.

Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the expected limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses obtained by comparing the excluded cross section with theoretical cross sections.

Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the expected limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses corresponding to a $+1\sigma$ variation of the experimental uncertainty.

Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the expected limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses corresponding to a $-1\sigma$ variation of the experimental uncertainty.

Observed excluded region (95\% CL), shown in blue, in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane for a model combining T5tttt, gluino pair production, followed by gluino decay to an on-shell top squark, together with a model for direct top squark pair production. The top squarks decay via the two-body process $\tilde{t}\rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. The neutralino and top squark masses are related by the constraint $m_{\tilde{t}} = m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} + 175$ GeV.

Expected excluded region (95\% CL), shown in blue, in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane for a model combining T5tttt, gluino pair production, followed by gluino decay to an on-shell top squark, together with a model for direct top squark pair production. The top squarks decay via the two-body process $\tilde{t}\rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. The neutralino and top squark masses are related by the constraint $m_{\tilde{t}} = m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} + 175$ GeV.

Figure 2. -1 sigma excluded gluino and neutralino masses at 95% CL for the T1tttt.

Figure 2. Expected exclusion for the T1tttt model.

Figure 2. +1 sigma expected exclusion for the T1tttt model.

Figure 2. -1 sigma expected exclusion for the T1tttt model.

Figure 2. Excluded gluino and neutralino masses at 95% CL for the T5tttt.

Figure 2. Expected exclusion for the T5tttt model.

Table 1. Observed event yields and mean background yields from the predictive fit in the 18 bins of the signal region R4.

Table 2. Observed event yields and mean background yields from the predictive fit in four aggregate search bins.