The 2D distribution of the $\Delta\Phi$ (cluster, $\mu_{trigger}$) vs the number of hits in clusters, in events from the out-of-time region.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the $B \rightarrow K \Phi$ as a function of the decay distance of the long-lived particle.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the $B \rightarrow K \Phi$ as a function of the decay distance of the long-lived particle.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the $B \rightarrow K \Phi$ as a function of the decay distance of the long-lived particle.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the $B \rightarrow K \Phi$ as a function of the decay distance of the long-lived particle.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the $B \rightarrow K \Phi$ as a function of the decay distance of the long-lived particle.

The estimated BR limits for a range of generator parameters: $0.3 < m_{LLP}$ < 3.0 GeV and 0 < $c\tau$ < 10000 mm.

The contour of the 2D distribution which includes the generation parameter values corresponding to the BR of 0.01.

The contour of the 2D distribution which includes the generation parameter values corresponding to the BR of 0.001.

Signal cut-flow efficiencies for the hadronic shower decay mode

Signal cut-flow efficiencies for the electromagnetic shower decay mode

Predictions of a leading order (LO) QCD simulation, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. The number of events are examined within bins of the four-jet mass and the ratio $\alpha$, which is the average dijet mass divided by the four-jet mass.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\overline{m}_{\mathrm{2j}}$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 1.5% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\overline{m}_{\mathrm{2j}}$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 5% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\overline{m}_{\mathrm{2j}}$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 10% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\alpha$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 1.5% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\alpha$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 5% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

The 68% probability contour in the $m_{\mathrm{4j}}$ vs. $\alpha$ plane from a signal simulation of a diquark with a width of 10% and a mass of 8.4 TeV, decaying to a pair of vector-like quarks, each with a mass of 2.1 TeV.

Signal differential distributions as a function of four-jet mass for $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, diquark masses of 2, 5, 8.6 TeV and various widths, for all $\alpha$ bins inclusively. The integral of each distribution has been normalized to unity.

The product of acceptance, $A$, and efficiency, $\varepsilon$, of a resonant signal with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25 vs. the diquark mass for various diquark widths, and for all $\alpha$ bins inclusively. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of generated events passing the kinematic selection criteria, while the efficiency is the fraction of signal events satisfying $m_{\mathrm{4j}} > 1.6$ TeV. We also show the signal acceptance alone in the curves where $\varepsilon = 1$.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV, and $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5%, 10% are also shown, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV, and $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5%, 10% are also shown, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV and $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.29, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 3.6 TeV, each shown for widths of $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5% and 10% are also included, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV and $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.29, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 3.6 TeV, each shown for widths of $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5% and 10% are also included, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV and $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.29, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 3.6 TeV, each shown for widths of $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5% and 10% are also included, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The four-jet mass distribution in data for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-3p, PowExp-3p and ModDijet-3p), each with three free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV, and $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5%, 10% are also shown, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The inclusive four-jet mass distribution in data for $\alpha$ > 0.10, fitted with three background-only functions (Dijet-5p, PowExp-5p and ModDijet-5p), each with five free parameters. Examples of predicted diquark resonances with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.25, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 8.6 TeV and $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}}$ = 0.29, $M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 3.6 TeV, each shown for widths of $\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}}$ = 1.5% and 10% are also included, with cross sections equal to the observed upper limits at 95% confidence level.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.25$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 1.5%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.25$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 5%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 5%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.25$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.11$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.13$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.15$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.17$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.19$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.21$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.23$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.27$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.29$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.31$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.33$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.42$ and width of the initial resonance Y equal to 10%. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation (s.d.) levels are also included. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate a mediator width equal to 10%.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.11$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.13$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.15$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.17$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.19$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.21$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.23$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.27$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.29$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.31$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.33$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, branching fraction, and acceptance for resonant production of paired dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}} / M_{\mathrm{Y}} = 0.42$ and widths of the initial resonance Y equal to 1.5, 5, and 10%. Limits are compared to predictions for scalar $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{dd}}$ diquarks with couplings to pairs of up and down quarks, $y_{\mathrm{uu}}$ and $y_{\mathrm{dd}}$, and to pairs of vector-like quarks, $y_{\chi}$ and $y_{\omega}$, set appropriately in order to generate the corresponding widths.

Observed local $p$-value for a four-jet resonance, Y, decaying to a pair of dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}}/M_{\mathrm{Y}}$ = 0.25, and various widths of Y superimposed.

Observed local $p$-value for a four-jet resonance, Y, decaying to a pair of dijet resonances, X, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{true}} = M_{\mathrm{X}}/M_{\mathrm{Y}}$ = 0.29, and various widths of Y superimposed.

The table presents the cumulative cutflow for a signal with $M_{\mathrm{S}} = 2.0$ TeV, $M_{\chi} = 0.5$ TeV and different width hypotheses ($\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}} =$ 1.5, 5, and 10%). Each row corresponds to the number of signal events that survive all cuts up to and including the one listed. The percentage in parentheses shows the efficiency of the current cut alone, defined as the ratio of the number of events that survive all cuts up to and including this one to the number of events that survived all previous cuts.

The table presents the cumulative cutflow for a signal with $M_{\mathrm{S}} = 5.0$ TeV, $M_{\chi} = 1.25$ TeV and different width hypotheses ($\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}} =$ 1.5, 5, and 10%). Each row corresponds to the number of signal events that survive all cuts up to and including the one listed. The percentage in parentheses shows the efficiency of the current cut alone, defined as the ratio of the number of events that survive all cuts up to and including this one to the number of events that survived all previous cuts.

The table presents the cumulative cutflow for a signal with $M_{\mathrm{S}} = 8.6$ TeV, $M_{\chi} = 2.15$ TeV and different width hypotheses ($\Gamma/M_{\mathrm{S}} =$ 1.5, 5, and 10%). Each row corresponds to the number of signal events that survive all cuts up to and including the one listed. The percentage in parentheses shows the efficiency of the current cut alone, defined as the ratio of the number of events that survive all cuts up to and including this one to the number of events that survived all previous cuts.

Signal efficiencies with Full Run 2 dimuon channel in 1b final state for different bbll (destructive interference) signal scenarios

Signal efficiencies with Full Run 2 dimuon channel in 2b final state for different bbll signal scenarios

Signal efficiencies with Full Run 2 dimuon channel in 2b final state for different bbll (destructive interference) signal scenarios

Signal efficiencies with Full Run 2 dielectron channel for different bbll signal scenarios

Signal efficiencies with Full Run 2 dielectron channel for different bbll (destructive interference) signal scenarios

Signal efficiencies with Full Run 2 dielectron channel in 1b final state for different bbll signal scenarios

Signal efficiencies with Full Run 2 dielectron channel in 1b final state for different bbll (destructive interference) signal scenarios

Signal efficiencies with Full Run 2 dielectron channel in 2b final state for different bbll signal scenarios

Signal efficiencies with Full Run 2 dielectron channel in 2b final state for different bbll (destructive interference) signal scenarios

Signal efficiencies with Full Run 2 dimuon channel for bsll signal

Signal efficiencies with Full Run 2 dielectron channel for bsll signal

Observed and expected background yields for different mass ranges in the dielectron channel in 0 b jet final state. The sum of all background contributions is shown as well as a breakdown into the four main categories. The quoted uncertainty includes both the statistical and the systematic components.

Observed and expected background yields for different mass ranges in the dielectron channel in 1 b jet final state. The sum of all background contributions is shown as well as a breakdown into the four main categories. The quoted uncertainty includes both the statistical and the systematic components.

Observed and expected background yields for different mass ranges in the dielectron channel in 2 b jet final state. The sum of all background contributions is shown as well as a breakdown into the four main categories. The quoted uncertainty includes both the statistical and the systematic components.

Observed and expected background yields for different mass ranges in the dimuon channel in 0 b jet final state. The sum of all background contributions is shown as well as a breakdown into the four main categories. The quoted uncertainty includes both the statistical and the systematic components.

Observed and expected background yields for different mass ranges in the dimuon channel in 1 b jet final state. The sum of all background contributions is shown as well as a breakdown into the four main categories. The quoted uncertainty includes both the statistical and the systematic components.

Observed and expected background yields for different mass ranges in the dimuon channel in 2 b jet final state. The sum of all background contributions is shown as well as a breakdown into the four main categories. The quoted uncertainty includes both the statistical and the systematic components.

Measured flavor ratio from DY+jets MC and data in 0b channel. The quoted uncertainty includes both the statistical and the systematic components. The flavor ratio from DY+jets MC deviates slightly from unity as the ratio is not corrected for mass-dependent acceptance times efficiency.

Measured flavor ratio from DY+jets MC and data in 1b+2b channel. The quoted uncertainty includes both the statistical and the systematic components. The flavor ratio from DY+jets MC deviates slightly from unity as the ratio is not corrected for mass-dependent acceptance times efficiency.

Lower limits on the energy scale ($\Lambda$) at 95% CL for bbll signal with different chirality and interference assumptions in the dielectron channel combining all b jet final states. The limits are obtained for $m_{ee}>300$ GeV.

Lower limits on the energy scale ($\Lambda$) at 95% CL for bbll signal with different chirality and interference assumptions in the dimuon channel combining all b jet final states. The limits are obtained for $m_{\mu\mu}>300$ GeV.

Lower limits on the energy scale ($\Lambda$) at 95% CL for bbll signal with different chirality and interference assumptions in the combined (dimuon+dielectron) channel combining all b jet final states. The limits are obtained for $m_{\ell\ell}>300$ GeV.

Observed and Expected upper limits on the product of the production cross section for the bsll signal in the dielectron and dimuon channels for 0 b-tagged jets.

Observed and Expected upper limits on the product of the production cross section for the bsll signal in the dielectron and dimuon channels for 1 b-tagged jets.

Distributions of the number of hits in the cluster (Nhits) for the DT category in the signal region (SR). The last histogram bin contains all overflow events.

Distributions of the number of hits in the cluster (Nhits) for the DT category in the out-of-time (OOT) region. The last histogram bin contains all overflow events.

Distributions of the number of hits in the cluster (Nhits) for the CSC category in the signal region (SR). The last histogram bin contains all overflow events.

Distributions of the number of hits in the cluster (Nhits) for the CSC category in the out-of-time (OOT) region. The last histogram bin contains all overflow events.

Distributions of the number of hits in the cluster (Nhits) for the DT category in the out-of-time (OOT) region. The last histogram bin contains all overflow events.

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the VLL production cross section as a function of the VLL mass for the pseudoscalar mean proper decay length c$\tau$ = 0.025 m. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

Distributions of the number of hits in the cluster (Nhits) for the CSC category in the out-of-time (OOT) region. The last histogram bin contains all overflow events.

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the VLL production cross section as a function of the pseudoscalar mean proper decay length c$\tau$ for VLL Mass of 700 GeV. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the VLL production cross section as a function of the VLL mass for the pseudoscalar mean proper decay length c$\tau$ = 0.025 m. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the VLL production cross section as a function of the VLL mass and the pseudoscalar mean proper decay length c$\tau$. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the VLL production cross section as a function of the pseudoscalar mean proper decay length c$\tau$ for VLL Mass of 700 GeV. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

The 95% CL observed exclusion contour on the VLL production cross section as a function of the VLL mass and the pseudoscalar mean proper decay length c$\tau$. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the VLL production cross section as a function of the VLL mass and the pseudoscalar mean proper decay length c$\tau$. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

Selection efficiencies in the CSC category signal region (SR) for different signal hypothesis. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

The 95% CL observed exclusion contour on the VLL production cross section as a function of the VLL mass and the pseudoscalar mean proper decay length c$\tau$. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

Selection efficiencies in the DT category signal region (SR) for different signal hypothesis. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

Selection efficiencies in the CSC category signal region (SR) for different signal hypothesis. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

Selection efficiencies in the DT category signal region (SR) for different signal hypothesis. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

The cluster reconstruction efficiency, including both DT and CSC clusters, as a function of the simulated r and |z| decay positions of the pseudoscalar into photons in events with MET > 200 GeV, for a VLL mass of 300 GeV and a pseudoscalar mass of 2 GeV, and a range of ctau values uniformly distributed between 0.01 and 0.1 m.

The cluster reconstruction efficiency, including both DT and CSC clusters, as a function of the simulated r and |z| decay positions of the pseudoscalar into photons in events with MET > 200 GeV, for a VLL mass of 500 GeV and a pseudoscalar mass of 2 GeV, and a range of ctau values uniformly distributed between 0.01 and 0.1 m.

Expected and observed upper limits for the b-quark-associated Higgs boson production cross section times branching fraction of the decay into a b quark pair at 95% CL as functions of $m_\phi$ for the 2018 FH category. The vertical dashed lines indicate the boundaries of usage of the different fit ranges, as reflected in the rightmost column of Table 2.

Expected and observed upper limits for the b-quark-associated Higgs boson production cross section times branching fraction of the decay into a b quark pair at 95% CL as functions of $m_\phi$, corresponding to the Run 2 combination. The vertical dashed line separates the mass range where only the 2017 SL category contributes on its left, from the region where also the 2017 FH and 2018 FH categories contribute on its right. The expected limits from the 2017 SL, 2017 FH, and 2018 FH datasets as well as from the previously published result based on the 2016 dataset are also shown as colored lines.

Interpretation in the $M_h^{125}$ scenario of the MSSM: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $m_{A}$. The higgsino mass parameter has been set to $\mu = +1$ TeV. The hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV.

Interpretation in the $M_h^{125}$ scenario of the MSSM: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $m_{A}$. The higgsino mass parameter has been set to $\mu = -1$ TeV. The hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV.

Interpretation in the $M_h^{125}$ scenario of the MSSM: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $m_{A}$. The higgsino mass parameter has been set to $\mu = -2$ TeV. The hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV.

Interpretation in the $M_h^{125}$ scenario of the MSSM: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $m_{A}$. The higgsino mass parameter has been set to $\mu = -3$ TeV. The hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV.

Interpretation in the $m_h^{mod+}$ scenario of the MSSM: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $m_{A}$. The hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV.

Interpretation in the hMSSM scenario of the MSSM: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $m_{A}$.

Interpretation in 2HDM scenarios: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as a function of $m_{A}$ for cos(beta-alpha) = 0.1, for the 2HDM $\it Type-II$ scenario.

Interpretation in 2HDM scenarios: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of cos(beta-alpha) for masses of $m_{A} = m_{H} = 300$ GeV, for the 2HDM $\it Type-II$ scenario.

Interpretation in 2HDM scenarios: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as a function of $m_{A}$ for cos(beta-alpha) = 0.1, for the 2HDM $\it Flipped$ scenario.

Interpretation in 2HDM scenarios: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of cos(beta-alpha) for masses of $m_{A} = m_{H} = 300$ GeV, for the 2HDM $\it Flipped$ scenario.

Interpretation in the 2HDM flipped scenario: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of cos(beta-alpha) for mass of $m_{A} = m_{H} = 140$ GeV.

Interpretation in the 2HDM flipped scenario: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of cos(beta-alpha) for mass of $m_{A} = m_{H} = 600$ GeV.

Interpretation in the 2HDM flipped scenario: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of cos(beta-alpha) for mass of $m_{A} = m_{H} = 900$ GeV.

Interpretation in the 2HDM flipped scenario: observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter tan(beta) as functions of cos(beta-alpha) for mass of $m_{A} = m_{H} = 1200$ GeV.

Simulated signal shapes for three representative values of the Higgs boson mass $m_\phi$ in the 2017 SL channel.

Simulated signal shapes for three representative values of the Higgs boson mass $m_\phi$ in the 2017 FH channel.

Simulated signal shapes for three representative values of the Higgs boson mass $m_\phi$ in the 2018 FH channel.

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the SL category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the SL category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the SL category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the FH category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the FH category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the FH category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the FH category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2018 analysis in the FH category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2018 analysis in the FH category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2018 analysis in the FH category

Background-only fits to the M12 distribution in each fit range of the 2018 analysis in the FH category

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in ditau 2016 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in ditau 2017 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in ditau 2018 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in mutau 2016 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in mutau 2017 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in mutau 2018 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in mutau 2016 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in mutau 2017 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in mutau 2018 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in etau 2016 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in etau 2017 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in etau 2018 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in etau 2016 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in etau 2017 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in etau 2018 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in emu 2016 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in emu 2017 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to tautau in emu 2018 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in emu 2016 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in emu 2017 channel for different signal scenarios

Cutflow for VBF Z' to WW in emu 2018 channel for different signal scenarios

Observed and expected background yields for different mass ranges in the mutau channel. The quoted uncertainty includes both the statistical and the systematic components. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Observed and expected background yields for different mass ranges in the ditau channel. The quoted uncertainty includes both the statistical and the systematic components. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Observed and expected background yields for different mass ranges in the etau channel. The quoted uncertainty includes both the statistical and the systematic components. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Observed and expected background yields for different mass ranges in the emu channel. The quoted uncertainty includes both the statistical and the systematic components. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 0.1.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 0.25.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 0.50.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 0.75.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 1.0.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 0.1.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 0.25.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 0.50.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 0.75.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to tautau, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 1.0.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 0.1.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 0.25.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 0.50.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 0.75.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 0 and $k_V = 1.0.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 0.1.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 0.25.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 0.50.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 0.75.$

Combined $95\%$ confidence level expected and observed upper limits on the product of the $\mathrm{Z'}$ cross section and the branching fraction for a $\mathrm{Z'}$ boson decaying to WW, as a function of $\mathrm{Z'}$ mass and assuming g_(1,2) = 1 and $k_V = 1.0.$

Cross sections for different signal models for VBF Z'. To calculate cross section for branching fraction (br) 0.20 and kV = 0.1, subsitute the values in (br {x} $\kappa_{V}^{2}$ {x} xsec)

Combined 95% CL lower limits on m(Z') as a function of the Z' branching fraction to tautau for g_(1,2)=0 scenario. The observed limits corresponding to $\kappa_V$ equal to 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 are shown here.

Combined 95% CL lower limits on m(Z') as a function of the Z' branching fraction to tautau for g_(1,2)=1 scenario. The observed limits corresponding to $\kappa_V$ equal to 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 are shown here.

Combined 95% CL lower limits on m(Z') as a function of the Z' branching fraction to WW for g_(1,2)=0 scenario. The observed limits corresponding to $\kappa_V$ equal to 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 are shown here.

Combined 95% CL lower limits on m(Z') as a function of the Z' branching fraction to WW for g_(1,2)=1 scenario. The observed limits corresponding to $\kappa_V$ equal to 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 are shown here.

Cutflow for signal samples in the muon-tau channel for 2016 signal samples. Each entry other than the total is the relative efficiency with respect to the previous selection.

Cutflow for signal samples in the muon-tau channel for 2017 signal samples. Each entry other than the total is the relative efficiency with respect to the previous selection.

Cutflow for signal samples in the muon-tau channel for 2018 signal samples. Each entry other than the total is the relative efficiency with respect to the previous selection.

Cutflow for signal samples in the electron-tau channel for 2016 signal samples. Each entry other than the total is the relative efficiency with respect to the previous selection.

Cutflow for signal samples in the electron-tau channel for 2017 signal samples. Each entry other than the total is the relative efficiency with respect to the previous selection.

Cutflow for signal samples in the electron-tau channel for 2018 signal samples. Each entry other than the total is the relative efficiency with respect to the previous selection.

Yields for the muon-tau channel in 2016 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Yields for the muon-tau channel in 2017 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Yields for the muon-tau channel in 2018 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Yields for the electron-tau channel in 2016 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Yields for the electron-tau channel in 2017 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Yields for the electron-tau channel in 2018 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Yields for the di-tau channel in 2016 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Yields for the di-tau channel in 2017 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Yields for the di-tau channel in 2018 as a function of reconstructed mass. Data and each background are listed with their respective uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow bin.

Covariance matrix for all bins and all channels used in the background-only fit of this analysis. There are the e-tau, the mu-tau, and the tau-tau analysis channels, each present for 2016, 2017, and 2018. Each has 6 bins in the reconstructed mass (mrec[GeV]) indicated with their borders in the bin naming. The bin labels have channel name, year name, then bin name.

95% confidence level expected limit with 1 and 2 sigma uncertainties, as well as observed limits on Z' model cross section times branching ratio to di-tau in the e-tau channel.

95% confidence level expected limit with 1 and 2 sigma uncertainties, as well as observed limits on Z' model cross section times branching ratio to di-tau in the mu-tau channel.

95% confidence level expected limit with 1 and 2 sigma uncertainties, as well as observed limits on Z' model cross section times branching ratio to ditau in the ditau channel.

95% confidence level expected limit with 1 and 2 sigma uncertainties, as well as observed limits on Z' model cross section times branching ratio to ditau for the combination of all channels.

Distributions in $m_{Z'}^{rec}$ for data in the SRs, together with fits of the background functions under the background-only hypothesis for the muon channel. The number of observed events in each bin is divided by the bin width. The signal predictions are shown for different Z' boson masses, normalized to an arbitrary cross section of 1 fb. In the panels below the distributions, the ratios of data to the background function are displayed. The shaded green areas represent the statistical uncertainty from the fit. The $\chi^2$ values per number of degrees of freedom ($\chi^2$/n.d.f.) and the corresponding $p$-values are provided for each fit.

Distributions in $m_{Z'}^{T}$ for data in the SRs, together with fits of the background functions under the background-only hypothesis for the invisible channel. The number of observed events in each bin is divided by the bin width. The signal predictions are shown for different Z' boson masses, normalized to an arbitrary cross section of 1 fb. In the panels below the distributions, the ratios of data to the background function are displayed. The shaded green areas represent the statistical uncertainty from the fit. The $\chi^2$ values per number of degrees of freedom ($\chi^2$/n.d.f.) and the corresponding $p$-values are provided for each fit.

Distributions in $m_{Z'}^{T}$ for data in the SRs, together with fits of the background functions under the background-only hypothesis for the invisible channel. The number of observed events in each bin is divided by the bin width. The signal predictions are shown for different Z' boson masses, normalized to an arbitrary cross section of 1 fb. In the panels below the distributions, the ratios of data to the background function are displayed. The shaded green areas represent the statistical uncertainty from the fit. The $\chi^2$ values per number of degrees of freedom ($\chi^2$/n.d.f.) and the corresponding $p$-values are provided for each fit.

Distributions in $m_{Z'}^{rec}$ for data in the SRs, together with fits of the background functions under the background-only hypothesis for the electron channel. The number of observed events in each bin is divided by the bin width. The signal predictions are shown for different Z' boson masses, normalized to an arbitrary cross section of 1 fb. In the panels below the distributions, the ratios of data to the background function are displayed. The shaded green areas represent the statistical uncertainty from the fit. The $\chi^2$ values per number of degrees of freedom ($\chi^2$/n.d.f.) and the corresponding $p$-values are provided for each fit.

Distributions in $m_{Z'}^{rec}$ for data in the SRs, together with fits of the background functions under the background-only hypothesis for the electron channel. The number of observed events in each bin is divided by the bin width. The signal predictions are shown for different Z' boson masses, normalized to an arbitrary cross section of 1 fb. In the panels below the distributions, the ratios of data to the background function are displayed. The shaded green areas represent the statistical uncertainty from the fit. The $\chi^2$ values per number of degrees of freedom ($\chi^2$/n.d.f.) and the corresponding $p$-values are provided for each fit.

Expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction as a function of the Z' boson mass.Each line corresponds to the three different final states and their combined result.

Expected upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction as a function of the Z' boson mass.Each line corresponds to the three different final states and their combined result.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction as functions of the Z' boson mass from the combination of all final states. The limits are compared with the predictions of the HVT model and the expected limits (shown by red curves) from a previous analysis.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction as functions of the Z' boson mass from the combination of all final states. The limits are compared with the predictions of the HVT model and the expected limits (shown by red curves) from a previous analysis.

Prediction from the HVT model.

Prediction from the HVT model.

Observed upper limits at 95% CL on gF for different Z' boson masses as functions of the product of $g_{H}$ with the sign of $g_{F}$. The two benchmark scenarios of the HVT model are shown by the black markers.

Observed upper limits at 95% CL on gF for different Z' boson masses as functions of the product of $g_{H}$ with the sign of $g_{F}$. The two benchmark scenarios of the HVT model are shown by the black markers.

Observed exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$ and a $-1 \sigma$ deviation of the NNLO+NNLL theoretical cross-section of a $\tilde{t}_1$ pair-production.

Expected exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

The $1\sigma$ variation of expected 95% CL exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

The $2\sigma$ variation of expected 95%CL exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Observed exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

Observed exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{ GeV}$ and a $+1 \sigma$ deviation of the NNLO+NNLL theoretical cross-section of a $\tilde{t}_1$ pair-production.

Observed exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{ GeV}$ and a $-1 \sigma$ deviation of the NNLO+NNLL theoretical cross-section of a $\tilde{t}_1$ pair-production.

Expected exclusion limits at the 95% CL in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

The $1\sigma$ variation of expected 95% CL exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

The $2\sigma$ variation of expected 95%CL exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

Observed upper limits on the top-spartner pair production cross-section in fb at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$

Expected upper limits on the top-spartner pair production cross-section in fb at the 95% CL in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$

Observed upper limits on the top-spartner pair production cross-section in fb at the 95% CL in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

Expected upper limits on the top-spartner pair production cross-section in fb at the 95% CL in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1} - $BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane, assuming $m_{\tilde\chi^0_1} = 1 \mathrm{GeV}$.

Post-fit distribution of $N_{\mathrm{tops}}^{\mathrm{DNN}} (\mathrm{R=1.0})$ in the SRA signal region presented without the associated SRA applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(j^{b}_{R=1.0}, c)$ in the SRA signal region presented without the associated SRA applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(c_{1})$ in the SRB signal region presented without the associated SRB applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $m_{\mathrm{T}}(j, \mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})_{\mathrm{close}}$ in the SRB signal region presented without the associated SRB applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} \textrm{Significance}$ in the SRC signal region presented without the associated SRC applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $m_{\mathrm{T}}(j, \mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})_{\mathrm{close}}$ in the SRC signal region presented without the associated SRC applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of NN signal score in the SRD signal region presented without the associated SRD applied to the variable. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Post-fit distribution of $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ in the SRD signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Pull plots showing the SRA, SRB and SRC post-fit data and SM agreement using the background-only fit configuration

Pull plots showing the SRD post-fit data and SM agreement using the background-only fit configuration

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region A. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region B. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region C. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 750. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 1000. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 1250. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 1500. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 1750. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde\chi^0_1})=$ (900,1) , (700,300), (550,375) in the Signal region D 2000. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal acceptance in the SRA$^{[450,575]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRA$^{[450,575]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRA$^{\geq 575}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRA$^{\geq 575}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRB$^{[100,150]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRB$^{[100,150]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRB$^{[150,400]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRB$^{[150,400]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRB$^{\geq 400}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRB$^{\geq 400}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRC$^{[100,150]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRC$^{[100,150]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRC$^{[150,300]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRC$^{[150,300]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRC$^{[300,500]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRC$^{[300,500]}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRC$^{\geq 500}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRC$^{\geq 500}$ region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD750 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD750 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD1000 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD1000 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD1250 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD1250 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD1500 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD1500 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD1750 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD1750 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

Signal acceptance in the SRD2000 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$ (a factor of 10 larger than in the plots).

Signal efficiency in the SRD2000 region in the $\tilde{t}_1 - \tilde\chi^0_1$ mass plane, assuming BR$(\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t + \tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.5$.

The DT cluster reconstruction efficiency as a function of the simulated r decay positions of S decaying to $d\bar{d}$ in events with $\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} >$ 200 GeV, for a mass of 40 GeV and a range of c$\tau$ values between 1 and 10 m. The clusters are selected from signal events satisfying the $\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} >$ 200 GeV requirement.

The CSC cluster reconstruction efficiency as a function of the simulated |z| decay positions of S decaying to $d\bar{d}$ in events with $\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} >$ 200 GeV, for a mass of 40 GeV and a range of c$\tau$ values between 1 and 10 m. The clusters are selected from signal events satisfying the $\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} >$ 200 GeV requirement.

The CSC cluster reconstruction efficiency as a function of the simulated |z| decay positions of S decaying to $d\bar{d}$ in events with $\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} >$ 200 GeV, for a mass of 40 GeV and a range of c$\tau$ values between 1 and 10 m. The clusters are selected from signal events satisfying the $\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} >$ 200 GeV requirement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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