Probability of finding at least one TAR jet, where the p_T-leading TAR jet passes the m_Wcand and D₂^β=1 requirements, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=500 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1000 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1700 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected+1σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected-1σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected+2σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Expected-2σ exclusion contour at 95% C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_χ=1, m_χ=200 GeV, and sinθ=0.01.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) for m_Z'=0.5 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) for m_Z'=1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) for m_Z'=1.7 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) for m_Z'=2.1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s → W^± W^∓) process for m_Z'=2.1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Data overlaid on SM background yields stacked in each SR and CR category after the fit to data ('Post-fit'). The yields in the SR are broken down into their contributions to the individual bins. The maximum-likelihood estimators are set to the conditional values of the CR-only fit, and propagated to SR and CRs.

Dominant sources of uncertainty for three dark Higgs scenarios after the fit to data. The uncertainties are quantified in terms of their contribution to the fitted signal uncertainty that is expressed relative to the theory prediction. Three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_χ=1.0, sinθ=0.01 and m_χ=200 GeV are considered, which are indicated using the (m_Z', m_s) format in units of GeV in the table columns.

Cumulative efficiencies in the merged category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_χ=1.0, sinθ=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_χ=200 GeV considering s→W(ℓν)W(qq) decays only.

Cumulative efficiencies in the resolved category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_χ=1.0, sinθ=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_χ=200 GeV considering s→W(ℓν)W(qq) decays only.

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={300, 350, 400, 500, 750} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={1000, 1700} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={2100, 2500, 2900, 3300} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

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.

The number of events as a function of the dijet invariant mass, compared to background prediction from fit and corresponding uncertainties, in the region defined by |y*|<1.2 optimized for the W* search.

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [3.4-3.7] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [3.4-3.7] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [3.7-4.0] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [3.7-4.0] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.0-4.3] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.0-4.3] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.3-4.6] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.3-4.6] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.6-4.9] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.6-4.9] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.9-5.4] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.9-5.4] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in dijet invariant mass region above 5.4 TeV

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in dijet invariant mass region above 5.4 TeV

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 900 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 950 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1000 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1050 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1100 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1150 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1200 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1300 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1400 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 800 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 900 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 950 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1000 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1050 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1100 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1150 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1200 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1300 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1400 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of a vector-like $T$ quark in the branching-ratio plane.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of a vector-like $B$ quark in the branching-ratio plane.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $T\bar T$ cross section as a function of $T$ mass under the assumption BR($T\to Wb$)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $B\bar B$ cross section as a function of $B$ mass under the assumption BR($T\to Zt$)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $B\bar B$ cross section as a function of $B$ mass under the assumption BR($B\to Wt$)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $B\bar B$ cross section as a function of $B$ mass under the assumption BR($B\to Zb$)=1.

Acceptance x efficiency versus resonance mass for both lephad and hadhad channels in the RS bulk model with k/MPl = 1

Acceptance x efficiency versus resonance mass for both lephad and hadhad channels in the RS bulk model with k/MPl = 2

Acceptance x efficiency versus resonance mass for both lephad and hadhad channels in the scalar model

Upper limits on the production cross-section times the HH to bbtautau branching ratio for non-resonant HH at 95% CLS and their interpretation as multiples of the SM prediction

Upper limits on the production cross-section times the HH to bbtautau branching ratio divided by the SM prediction for non-resonant HH at 95% CL

Post-fit expected number of signal and background events and observed number of data events after applying the selection criteria and requiring exactly 2 b-tagged jets and assuming a background-only hypothesis

Post-fit expected number of signal and background events and observed number of data events in the last two bins of the non-resonant BDT score distribution of the SM signal after applying the selection criteria and requiring exactly 2 b-tagged jets and assuming a background-only hypothesis

Exclusion limits on higgsino pair production divided by the theory cross-section.The results of the low-mass analysis are used below m(higgsino) = 300 GeV, while those of the high-mass analysis are used above. The figure shows the observed and expected 95% upper limits on the higgsino pair production cross-section as a function of m(higgsino).

Observed and expected 95% limits in the m(higgsino) vs BR(higgsino to higgs+gravitino) plane. The regions above the lines are excluded by the analyses.

The observed and expected 95% upper limits on the total pair production cross section for degenerate higgsinos as a function of m(higgsino) for the high-mass search. Only the high-mass analysis results are used in this figure.

The observed and expected 95% upper limits on the total pair production cross section for degenerate higgsinos as a function of m(higgsino) for the high-mass search, divided by the theory cross section. Only the high-mass analysis results are used in this figure.

The observed and expected 95% upper limits on the total pair production cross section for degenerate higgsinos as a function of m(higgsino) for the low-mass search. Only the low-mass analysis results are used in this figure.

The observed and expected 95% upper limits on the total pair production cross section for degenerate higgsinos as a function of m(higgsino) for the low-mass search, divided by the theory cross section. Only the low-mass analysis results are used in this figure.

Particle-level acceptance for the low-mass discovery signal regions low-SR-MET0-meff440 and low-SR-MET150-meff440, shown as a function of higgsino mass. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events passing the particle-level event selection that emulates the detector-level selection. The acceptance calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons that subsequently both decay to b-quarks.

The experimental efficiency of the low-mass analysis, for the two discovery signal regions low-SR-MET0-meff440 and low-SR-MET150-meff440, as a function of higgsino mass. The experimental efficiency is defined as the number of events passing the detector-level event selection divided by the number of events passing the event selection for a perfect detector. The denominator is obtained by implementing particle-level event selection that emulate the detector-level selection. Such particle-level selection is not applied on the numerator.

Particle-level acceptance for the high-mass discovery signal regions SR-4b-meff1-A-disc and SR-3b-meff3-A, shown as a function of higgsino mass. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events passing the particle-level event selection that emulates the detector-level selection. The acceptance calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons that subsequently both decay to b-quarks.

The experimental efficiency of the high-mass analysis, for the two discovery signal regions SR-4b-meff1-A-disc and SR-3b-meff3-A, as a function of higgsino mass. The experimental efficiency is defined as the number of events passing the detector-level event selection divided by the number of events passing the event selection for a perfect detector. The denominator is obtained by implementing particle-level event selection that emulate the detector-level selection. Such particle-level selection is not applied on the numerator.

Example cutflow for SR-3b-meff3-A.

Example cutflow for SR-4b-meff1-A-disc.

Cutflow for low-mass analysis for each signal mass point.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-I, tanbeta 1, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-I only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-I, tanbeta 5, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-I only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-I, tanbeta 10, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-I only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-I, tanbeta 20, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-I only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-II, tanbeta 1, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-II both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-II, tanbeta 5, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-II both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-II, tanbeta 10, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-II both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-II, tanbeta 20, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-II both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the lepton specific, tanbeta 1, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For lepton specific only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the lepton specific, tanbeta 2, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For lepton specific only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the lepton specific, tanbeta 3, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For lepton specific only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the flipped, tanbeta 1, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For flipped both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the flipped, tanbeta 5, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For flipped both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the flipped, tanbeta 10, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For flipped both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the flipped, tanbeta 20, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For flipped both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 130 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 130 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 140 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 140 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 150 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 150 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 160 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 160 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 170 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 170 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 180 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 180 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 190 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 190 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 210 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 210 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 220 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 220 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 230 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 230 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 240 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 240 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 250 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 250 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 260 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 260 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 270 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 270 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 280 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 280 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 290 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 290 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 310 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 310 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 320 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 320 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 330 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 330 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 340 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 340 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 350 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 350 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 360 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 360 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 370 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 370 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 380 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 380 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 390 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 390 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 400 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 400 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 410 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 410 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 420 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 420 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 430 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 430 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 440 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 440 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 450 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 450 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 460 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 460 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 470 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 470 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 480 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 480 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 490 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 490 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 510 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 510 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 520 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 520 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 530 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 530 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 540 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 540 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 550 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 550 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 560 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 560 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 570 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 570 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 580 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 580 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 590 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 590 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 600 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 600 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 610 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 610 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 620 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 620 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 630 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 630 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 640 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 640 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 650 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 650 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 660 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 660 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 670 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 670 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 680 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 680 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 690 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 690 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 700 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 700 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 200 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 200 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 300 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 300 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 500 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 500 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.