Data from Figure 2, panel d, upper panel, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 2, panel d, lower panel, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 5-10% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 20-30% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 40-50% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 5-10% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 20-30% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 40-50% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Figure 5, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 5, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel c, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel d, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 7, Zero Crossing Point of $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 7, $\left\langle [p_{T}]\right\rangle$ for $p_{T}$ range of 0.5-10 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 8, panel a, Closure of Sum Rule 1 for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 8, panel b, Closure of Sum Rule 2 for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 9, panel a, $v_{0}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 9, panel b, $v_{0} / v^{5\%}_{0}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 10, panel a, $v_{0}\sqrt{N_{ch}}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 10, panel b, $v_{0}\sqrt{N_{ch}}$ vs Centrality for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 5-10% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 20-30% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 40-50% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 60-70% Centrality

VLL "4321" cross-sections at NLO order of accuracy obtained by MadGraph.

SUSY RPV LQD higgsino cross-sections at NLO + NLL order of accuracy obtained by Resummino.

SUSY RPV LQD wino cross-sections at NLO + NLL order of accuracy obtained by Resummino.

Cutflow of the selection requirements for VLL signals with m_VLL =600, 900, and 1200 GeV. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 126 fb^-1 (140 fb^-1) for the BJET (MST and MSDT) signal regions. The first row refers to unweighted event yields, while the yields presented in other rows are computed after applying event weights according to the selected object reconstruction and identification efficiency scale factors. Dashes (––) refer to requirements that are not applicable.

The expected acceptance times efficiency (including object identification and reconstruction, trigger selection, and event selection) for VLL signal as a function of m_VLL for the combined signal regions as well as for three individual signal region categories: 1τ_had ≥3b MST, 1τ_had ≥3b BJET and ≥2τ_had ≥3b MSDT. The region 1τ_had ≥3b MST refers to the combination of 1τ_had 3b MST and 1τ_had ≥4b MST signal regions, while the region 1τ_had ≥3b BJET refers to the combination of 1τ_had 3b BJET and 1τ_had ≥4b BJET signal regions.

The distributions of the variables used in the simultaneous fit for the SR. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the shaded band represents the predicted uncertainties. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction. The last bin of each plot has been extended to include the overflow contribution.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction$\sigma(\mathrm{pp} \ ightarrow W\mathrm{a})\mathcal{B}(W ightarrow \ell^{+} v_{\ell})\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{a} \rightarrow Z\gamma)\mathcal{B}(Z \rightarrow \ell^{+} \ell^{-})$ s a function of the ALP mass from 110 to 400 GeV

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the photophobic ALP model parameter $1/f_{\mathrm{a}}$ as a function of ALP mass reinterpreted from $1/f_{\mathrm{a}}=2~\mathrm{TeV}^{-1}$

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for mϕ≠ 125 GeV. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on (σ/σggH)×B for all Higgs boson portal mediator samples where the cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb [97]. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for mϕ≠ 125 GeV benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for mϕ≠ 125 GeV benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for baryogenesis samples for the one-DV analysis. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for baryogenesis samples for the one-DV analysis. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for baryogenesis samples for the one-DV analysis. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Summary of the limits for the Z+ALP model. Comparison between observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the Z+ALP production cross-section σ×Ba →gg for ma = 40 GeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on σ×Ba →gg for all considered ALP mass points.

Comparison between the observed and expected 95% CL limits on (σ/σZH) ×BH →ss for Higgs boson portal mediator and ms=35 GeV for Z-associated H production with one DV.

Observed 95% CL limits on (σ/σZH) ×BH →ss for all Higgs boson portal mediator samples where the cross-section is normalized to the Z(arrow ℓℓ)-associated Higgs boson production cross-section, σZH = 0.089 pb .

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×Bϕ →ss for mϕ≠125 GeV. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limits on σ×Bϕ →ss for mϕ≠125 GeV. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the σ×BZd →ff production cross-section for dark photon Zd benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the σ×BZd →ff production cross-section for dark photon Zd benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the one-DV search. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the one-DV search. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the one-DV search. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 60 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 60 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 200 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark sample for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 400 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark sample for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the one-DV search.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed limits on (σ/σggH) ×B for the 125 GeV boson benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches. The cross-section is normalized to the SM Higgs boson gluon–gluon fusion production cross-section, σggH = 48.61 pb.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 60 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 60 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 200 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark sample for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 400 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark sample for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 600 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed 95% CL limits on σ×B for 1000 GeV non-SM Higgs boson scalar benchmark samples for the combination of one- and two- DV searches.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →νbb̄ channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →νbb̄ channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →νbb̄ channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →cbs channel) for one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →cbs channel) for one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →cbs channel) for one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →ντ+ τ- channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →ντ+ τ- channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed limits for the baryogenesis benchmark samples (χ →ντ+ τ- channel) for the one-DV search, where σSM in the plots is cross-section of the SM Higgs boson production.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for the Z+ALP benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for the Z+ALP benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for the Z+ALP benchmark samples. The observed limits are consistent with the expected ones within the uncertainties.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency maps as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.22 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.22 m.

One-DV vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.22 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.22 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.66 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.66 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.66 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.66 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.13 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.13 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.13 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.13 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.58 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.58 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.58 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.58 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=1.31 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=1.31 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=1.31 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=1.31 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.63 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.63 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.63 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.63 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.05 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.05 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.05 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.05 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=5.32 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=5.32 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=5.32 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=5.32 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.61 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.61 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.61 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.61 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.59 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.59 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.59 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.59 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.84 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.84 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.84 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.84 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.31 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.31 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.31 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.31 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.29 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.29 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.29 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.29 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.41 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.40 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.40 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.40 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.40 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.33 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.33 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.33 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=4.33 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=6.04 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=6.04 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=6.04 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=6.04 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency maps as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency maps as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency maps as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency maps as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=10 GeV and cτsim=0.92 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=55 GeV and cτsim=5.55 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →bb̄ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →cbs channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap trigger 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV endcap vertex 2D efficiency map as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for baryogenesis χ →τ+τ-ν channel with mχ=100 GeV and cτsim=3.50 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region for mALP=0.1 GeV and cτsim=0.003 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region for mALP=0.1 GeV and cτsim=0.003 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region for mALP=0.1 GeV and cτsim=0.003 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region for mALP=0.1 GeV and cτsim=0.003 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=1 GeV and cτsim=0.031 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=1 GeV and cτsim=0.031 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=1 GeV and cτsim=0.031 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=1 GeV and cτsim=0.031 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=10 GeV and cτsim=0.31 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=10 GeV and cτsim=0.31 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=10 GeV and cτsim=0.31 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=10 GeV and cτsim=0.31 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=40 GeV and cτsim=0.48 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=40 GeV and cτsim=0.48 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mALP=40 GeV and cτsim=0.48 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for Z+ALP samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mALP=40 GeV and cτsim=0.48 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=5 GeV, cτsim=0.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=5 GeV, cτsim=0.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=5 GeV, cτsim=0.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=5 GeV, cτsim=0.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=3.0 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=3.0 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=3.0 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, mZd=15 GeV, cτsim=3.0 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=50 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=50 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=50 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=50 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=3.4 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=3.4 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=3.4 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=250 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=3.4 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudial decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=100 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=200 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=200 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=200 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, mZd=200 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=1.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=150 GeV, cτsim=4.0 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=400 GeV, cτsim=4.6 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=400 GeV, cτsim=4.6 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=400 GeV, cτsim=4.6 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for HZZd samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, mZd=400 GeV, cτsim=4.6 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.12 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.12 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.12 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.12 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=15 GeV, cτsim=0.25 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=15 GeV, cτsim=0.25 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=15 GeV, cτsim=0.25 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=60 GeV, ms=15 GeV, cτsim=0.25 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.1 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.1 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.1 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.1 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=5 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=16 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=0.75 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=0.75 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=0.75 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=0.75 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=35 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.0 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.0 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.0 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=1.0 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mH=125 GeV, ms=55 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=80 GeV, cτsim=2.0 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=80 GeV, cτsim=2.0 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=80 GeV, cτsim=2.0 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=200 GeV, ms=80 GeV, cτsim=2.0 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=100 GeV, cτsim=1.25 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=175 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=175 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=175 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=400 GeV, ms=175 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.4 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.4 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.4 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.4 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=150 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=600 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=2.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=50 GeV, cτsim=0.3 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=1.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=275 GeV, cτsim=3.5 m.

One-DV barrel trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=4.5 m.

One-DV endcap trigger efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=4.5 m.

One-DV barrel vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and transverse decay position Lxy for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=4.5 m.

One-DV endcap vertex efficiency for ZH samples in the lepton-triggered region as a function of the LLP boost β and longitudinal decay position Lz for mϕ=1000 GeV, ms=475 GeV, cτsim=4.5 m.

Systematic covariance matrix for the differential cross-section distribution.

Observed profile likelihood as a function of $\sigma\times\mathcal{B}_{H\rightarrow WW^{*}}$ normalised by the SM expectation for the single-channel measurements

Two-dimensional likelihood scan of the measured values of $\sigma_{ZH}\times\mathcal{B}_{H\rightarrow WW^{*}}$ vs. $\sigma_{WH}\times\mathcal{B}_{H\rightarrow WW^{*}}$.

The observed values of the background normalisation factors for the combined 2-POI fit. The uncertainties correspond to the total of all statistical and systematic sources.

Measured cross sections times the $H\rightarrow WW^{*}$ branching ratio for the $p_T^V$ scheme.

Measured cross sections times the $H\rightarrow WW^{*}$ branching ratio for the STXS scheme. Note: the uncertainties of "-0" are due to the confidence interval reaching the minimum allowed value of the POI.

Correlation matrix of the POIs and normalisation factors for the 2-POI inclusive analysis

Correlation matrix of the parameters of interest, normalisation factors and nuissance parameters for the $p_T^V$ scheme

Correlation matrix of the parameters of interest, normalisation factors and nuissance parameters for the STXS scheme

Event data from Z-dominated SR

$\kappa^{2}_\mathrm{K}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 2 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{2}_\mathrm{p}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 1 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{2}_\mathrm{p}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 2 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{11}_{\pi,\mathrm{K}}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 1 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{11}_{\pi,\mathrm{K}}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 2 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{11}_{\pi,\mathrm{p}}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 1 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{11}_{\pi,\mathrm{p}}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 2 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{11}_{\mathrm{p},\mathrm{K}}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 1 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{11}_{\mathrm{p},\mathrm{K}}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 2 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{2}_{\mathrm{Q}}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 1 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{2}_{\mathrm{Q}}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 2 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{11}_{\mathrm{Q},\mathrm{K}}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 1 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{11}_{\mathrm{Q},\mathrm{K}}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 2 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{11}_{\mathrm{Q},\mathrm{p}}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 1 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{11}_{\mathrm{Q},\mathrm{p}}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 2 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$C_\mathrm{Q,p}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 1 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$C_\mathrm{Q,p}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 2 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$C_\mathrm{Q,K}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 1 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$C_\mathrm{Q,K}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 2 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$C_\mathrm{p,K}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 1 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$C_\mathrm{p,K}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 2 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{11}_\mathrm{Q,p}/\kappa^{2}_\mathrm{Q}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 1 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{11}_\mathrm{Q,K}/\kappa^{2}_\mathrm{Q}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 1 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$(2\kappa^{11}_\mathrm{Q,K}-\kappa^{11}_\mathrm{p,K})/\kappa^{2}_\mathrm{K}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 1 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$(2\kappa^{11}_\mathrm{Q,p}-\kappa^{11}_\mathrm{p,K})/\kappa^{2}_\mathrm{p}$ as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 1 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{11}_\mathrm{Q,p}/\kappa^{2}_\mathrm{Q}$ normalized by its value at 0$-$5% centrality as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 1 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

$\kappa^{11}_\mathrm{Q,p}/\kappa^{2}_\mathrm{Q}$ normalized by its value at 0$-$5% centrality as a function of centrality (%) in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for Set 2 $p_\mathrm{T}$ acceptance.

The DV reconstruction efficiency for an HNL with $m_N = 2$ GeV and $c\tau_N = 10$ mm, as a function of the DV radius $r_{DV}$ using the customised vertex reconstruction for a selection of the fully leptonic MC samples. Decays from HNLs are shown for $ee$ DVs for HNLs with various masses.

Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

Observed 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model.

Observed 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model.

Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model.

Observed 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model.

Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model.

Observed 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model.

Expected 95% CL for 1SFH $e$ Majorana model.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 1SFH $e$ Majorana model.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Majorana model.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

Observed 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

Expected 95% CL for 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model.

Observed 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model.

Expected 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Majorana model.

Observed 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model.

Expected 95% CL for 2QDH IH Majorana model

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 2QDH IH Majorana model.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model.

Observed 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model.

Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the N mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Observed 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Observed 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Observed 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Observed 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Expected 95% CL for 1SFH $e$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 1SFH $e$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Observed 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Expected 95% CL for 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Observed 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Expected 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model on the N mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Observed 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Expected 95% CL for 2QDH IH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 2QDH IH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Observed 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Cutflow for background MC samples all channels

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu\mu$ 0.1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu\mu$ 1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu\mu$ 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu\mu$ 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu\mu$ 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu e$ 0.1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu e$ 1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu e$ 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu e$ 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu e$ 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for uee 0.1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for uee 1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for uee 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for uee 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for uee 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for eee 0.1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for eee 1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for eee 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for eee 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for eee 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $ee\mu$ 0.1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $ee\mu$ 1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $ee\mu$ 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $ee\mu$ 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $ee\mu$ 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $e\mu\mu$ 0.1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $e\mu\mu$ 1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $e\mu\mu$ 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $e\mu\mu$ 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $e\mu\mu$ 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu\pi$ 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu\pi$ 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu\pi$ 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu e\pi$ 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu e\pi$ 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu e\pi$ 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $e\mu\pi$ 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $e\mu\pi$ 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $e\mu\pi$ 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $ee\pi$ 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $ee\pi$ 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $ee\pi$ 1000 mm signal samples

Cross sections of eee channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of $ee\mu$ channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of $e\mu\mu$ channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu\mu$ channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu e$ channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of uee channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of eee channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of $ee\mu$ channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of $e\mu\mu$ channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu\mu$ channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu e$ channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of uee channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of eee channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of $ee\mu$ channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of $e\mu\mu$ channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu\mu$ channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu e$ channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of uee channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of eee channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of $ee\mu$ channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of $e\mu\mu$ channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu\mu$ channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu e$ channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of uee channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of $ee\pi$ channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of $ee\pi$ channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of $ee\pi$ channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of $ee\pi$ channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of $e\mu\pi$ channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of $e\mu\pi$ channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of $e\mu\pi$ channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of $e\mu\pi$ channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu\pi$ channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu\pi$ channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu\pi$ channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu\pi$ channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of $\mu e\pi$ channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of $\mu e\pi$ channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of $\mu e\pi$ channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of $\mu e\pi$ channels for QD Majorana limit models

Signal efficiencies for leptonic channels

Signal efficiencies for semi-leptonic channels

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.

Distribution of $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ in SROS-on-b-$e\mu\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $m_{\text{T}}^{\text{min}}$ in SROS-on-b-$e\mu\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ in SRSS-$2\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Observed ($N_{\text{obs}}$) and expected ($N_{\text{exp}}$) yields after the background-only fit for the flavor-merged inclusive SRs. The third and fourth columns list the 95\% CL upper limits on the visible cross-section ($\sigma_{\text{vis}}^{95}$) and on the number of signal events ($S_\text{obs}^{95}$). The fifth column ($S_\text{exp}^{95}$) shows the 95\% CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number of background events and its $\pm 1\sigma$ variations. The last two columns indicate the CL$_{\text{b}}$ value, i.e. the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis, and the discovery $p$-value ($p(s = 0)$) with its associated statistical significance $Z$. If the observed yield is below the expected yield, the $p$-value is capped at 0.5.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Distribution of $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ in SROS-off-b-$e\mu\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. Ratio values outside the graph range are indicated by brown arrows. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $m_{\text{T}}^{\text{min}}$ in SROS-off-b-$e\mu\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. Ratio values outside the graph range are indicated by brown arrows. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ in SRSS-$eee$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. Ratio values outside the graph range are indicated by brown arrows. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ in SRSS-$ee\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. Ratio values outside the graph range are indicated by brown arrows. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

The expected upper limits on the cross-section for each signal point. The gray numbers represent the values. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid. An asymptotic approximation is employed in the CL$_{\text{s}}$ calculation instead of the full calculation using pseudo-experiments.

The observed upper limits on the cross-section for each signal point. The gray numbers represent the values. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid. An asymptotic approximation is employed in the CL$_{\text{s}}$ calculation instead of the full calculation using pseudo-experiments.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Summary of the number of events passing each selection for the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}^0_3,\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=(300, 200, 100)$, $(550, 300, 100)$, $(450, 180, 100)$ GeV signal points, including all production processes. After the initial selections, the table is split into row blocks per inclusive region, and then further for each SR channel. Flavor-binned SRs are shown for SROS-on-b for reference. The generator level selections require to have two or more leptons.

Summary of the number of events passing each selection for the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}^0_3,\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=(300, 200, 100)$, $(550, 300, 100)$, $(450, 180, 100)$ GeV signal points, including all production processes. After the initial selections, the table is split into row blocks per inclusive region, and then further for each SR channel. Flavor-binned SRs are shown for SROS-off-b for reference. The generator level selections require to have two or more leptons.

Summary of the number of events passing each selection for the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}^0_3,\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=(300, 200, 100)$, $(550, 300, 100)$, $(450, 180, 100)$ GeV signal points, including all production processes. After the initial selections, the table is split into row blocks per inclusive region, and then further for each SR channel. Flavor-binned SRs are shown. The generator level selections require to have two or more leptons.