The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the VRSS for the $e\tau$ channel for events with 3-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $e\tau$ channel for events with 1-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $e\tau$ channel for events with 3-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $\mu\tau$ channel for events with 1-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $\mu\tau$ channel for events with 3-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.

Observed and expected upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(Z\rightarrow\ell\tau)$ at 95% confidence level.

Upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow bb\mu\mu)$ at 95% CL including the BDT cut as a function of the signal mass.

Upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow bb\mu\mu)$ at 95% CL without the BDT cut as a function of the signal mass.

The number of events when applying each cut in the analysis for $m_a$ = 16 GeV. The first row shows the approximate total number of events scaled to the theoretical signal cross-section and luminosity of the full Run 2 dataset, assuming $ \mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow bb\mu\mu)$ = 0.16%.

The number of events when applying each cut in the analysis for $m_a$ = 20 GeV. The first row shows the approximate total number of events scaled to the theoretical signal cross-section and luminosity of the full Run 2 dataset, assuming $ \mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow bb\mu\mu)$ = 0.16%.

The number of events when applying each cut in the analysis for $m_a$ = 30 GeV. The first row shows the approximate total number of events scaled to the theoretical signal cross-section and luminosity of the full Run 2 dataset, assuming $ \mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow bb\mu\mu)$ = 0.16%.

The number of events when applying each cut in the analysis for $m_a$ = 40 GeV. The first row shows the approximate total number of events scaled to the theoretical signal cross-section and luminosity of the full Run 2 dataset, assuming $ \mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow bb\mu\mu)$ = 0.16%.

The number of events when applying each cut in the analysis for $m_a$ = 50 GeV. The first row shows the approximate total number of events scaled to the theoretical signal cross-section and luminosity of the full Run 2 dataset, assuming $ \mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow bb\mu\mu)$ = 0.16%.

The number of events when applying each cut in the analysis for $m_a$ = 60 GeV. The first row shows the approximate total number of events scaled to the theoretical signal cross-section and luminosity of the full Run 2 dataset, assuming $ \mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow bb\mu\mu)$ = 0.16%.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the high-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the collinear mass $m_\text{coll}$ in the high-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $e\tau_\mu$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the collinear mass $m_\text{coll}$ in the high-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

Observed and expected upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(Z\rightarrow\ell\tau)$ with leptonically decaying $\tau$ at 95% confidence level.

Observed and expected upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(Z\rightarrow\ell\tau)$ at 95% confidence level, combination of hadronically and leptonically decaying $\tau$ channels.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the collinear mass $m_\text{coll}$ in the CRZ$\tau\tau$ for the $e\tau_\mu$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the collinear mass $m_\text{coll}$ in the CRZ$\tau\tau$ for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the CRZ$\tau\tau$ for the $e\tau_\mu$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the CRZ$\tau\tau$ for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the leading lepton transverse momentum $p_\text{T}(e)$ in the high-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $e\tau_\mu$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the leading lepton transverse momentum $p_\text{T}(\mu)$ in the high-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the missing transverse momentum $E^\text{miss}_\text{T}$ in the low-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $e\tau_\mu$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

The best-fit predicted and observed distributions of the missing transverse momentum $E^\text{miss}_\text{T}$ in the low-$p_\text{T}$-SR for the $\mu\tau_e$ channel. The first and last bin include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rejection factor (inverse of the efficiency) for jets that have the other origins (background jets) are shown. The background jet rejection factor is calculated using pre-selected large-$R$ jets in the sample of simulated $Z\rightarrow\nu\nu$ + jets events, dominated by initial state radiation (ISR) jets. The efficiency correction factors are applied on the background rejection for the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The boson-tagging efficiency for jets arising from $Z/h$ bosons decaying into $b\bar{b}$ (signal jets). The signal jet efficiency of $Z_{bb}$/$h_{bb}$-tagging is evaluated using a sample of pre-selected large-$R$ jets ($p_{\textrm{T}}>200~\textrm{GeV}, |\eta|<2.0, m_{J} > 40~\textrm{GeV}$) in the simulated $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model signal events with $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}},~\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}) \ge 400~\textrm{GeV}$. The jets are matched with generator-level $Z/h$-bosons by $\Delta R<1.0$ which decay into $b\bar{b}$. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The rejection factor (inverse of the efficiency) for jets that have the other origins (background jets) are shown. The background jet rejection factor is calculated using pre-selected large-$R$ jets in the sample of simulated $Z\rightarrow\nu\nu$ + jets events, dominated by initial state radiation (ISR) jets. As for the $Z_{bb}$/$h_{bb}$-tagging, the rejection is shown as the function of number of $b$- or $c$-quarks contained in the large-$R$ jet within $\Delta R<1.0$. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The total post-fit uncertainty in each of the SRs and VRs.

Summary of the observed data and predicted SM background in all SRs. The background prediction in SR-4Q (SR-2B2Q) is obtained by a background-only fit to CR0L-4Q (CR0L-2B2Q). The total systematic uncertainty on the background prediction is shown by the hatched area. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\textrm{GeV}$. The bottom panel shows the statistical significance of the discrepancy between the observed number of events and the SM expectation.

Number of observed data events and the SM backgrounds in the SRs and the CR0L bins. The SM backgrounds are predicted by the background-only fits. Note that the relative uncertainty on the expected yield in the CRs between the reducible backgrounds are identical, given that a common normalization factor is assigned for all of them in the fit. Yields for negligible backgrounds are indicated by "0.0000001±0.0000001" in the table.

Number of observed data events and the post-fit SM background prediction in the VR1L(1Y) bins and the corresponding CR1L(1Y) bins. "-" indicates negligibly small contribution. Note that the relative uncertainty on the expected yield in the CRs between the reducible backgrounds are identical, given that a common normalization factor is assigned for all of them in the fit. Yields for negligible backgrounds are indicated by "0.0000001±0.0000001" in the table.

$m_{\textrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{1})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $D_2(J_{1})$ in SR-4Q-VV. For $D_2$, the cut value applied for $V_{qq}$-tagging ($D_{2,\text{cut}}$) is subtracted as the off-set so that $D_2-D_{2,\text{cut}}(J)<0$ represents $J$ passing the $D_2$ selection. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{2})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $D_2(J_{2})$ in SR-4Q-VV. For $D_2$, the cut value applied for $V_{qq}$-tagging ($D_{2,\text{cut}}$) is subtracted as the off-set so that $D_2-D_{2,\text{cut}}(J)<0$ represents $J$ passing the $D_2$ selection. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

$m_{\textrm{T2}}$ distributions in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{bb})$ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m_{\textrm{eff}} $ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

$m_{\textrm{T2}}$ distributions in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{bb})$ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m_{\textrm{eff}} $ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=75$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=75$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=50$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=50$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=25$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ models. The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ models. The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1C1-WW) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-Wh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-Zh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-hh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-4Q-VV, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-2B2Q-VZ, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-2B2Q-Vh, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1C1-WW) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-Wh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-Zh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-hh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on the $T$-quark mass as a function of the $T$-quark width-to-mass ratio and the branching fraction of the $T \rightarrow Ht$ decay ($\Gamma_{T}$ is the $T$-quark width).

Cutflow table listing the number of events passing each criterion for a $T$-quark hypothesis with a mass of 1.6 TeV and $\kappa_{T} = 0.5$. The initial signal event yield is the predicted number of $T$-quark events inclusive in the Higgs-boson and top-quark decays for 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the single $T$-quark production cross-section as a function of the $T$-quark coupling $\kappa_{T}$ and $m_{T}$.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the single $T$-quark production cross-section as a function of the $T$-quark coupling $\kappa_{T}$ and $m_{T}$.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on the $T$-quark mass as a function of the $T$-quark width-to-mass ratio and the branching fraction of the $T \rightarrow Wb$ decay ($\Gamma_{T}$ is the $T$-quark width).

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The product of the analysis acceptance and selection efficiency for all analysis selection criteria is shown as a function of $m_Y$ and $m_{X}/m_{Y}$.

The cross-section of the signal samples is shown as a function of $m_Y$ and $m_{X}/m_{Y}$.

Distribution of the NN output in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and the expected contribution of the signal and background processes after the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions considering the correlations of the uncertainties as obtained by the fit.

Distribution of the NN output in the $t\bar{t}\gamma\,$CR in data and the expected contribution of the signal and background processes after the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions considering the correlations of the uncertainties as obtained by the fit.

Total event yield in the $W\gamma\,$CR in data and the expected contribution of the signal and background processes after the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions considering the correlations of the uncertainties as obtained by the fit.

Distribution of the scalar sum of the jet transverse momenta in the 0fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions. The first and last bins include the underflow and overflow, respectively.

Distribution of the $\eta$ of the $b$-tagged jet in the 0fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions.

Distribution of the reconstructed top-quark mass in the 0fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions. The first and last bins include the underflow and overflow, respectively.

Distribution of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the top-quark+photon system in the 0fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distribution of the photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the 0fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distribution of the photon $\eta$ in the 0fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions.

Distribution of the scalar sum of the jet transverse momenta in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the $b$-tagged jet and the highest-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ forward jet in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distribution of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the highest-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ forward jet in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distribution of the difference in $\eta$ between the highest-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ forward jet and the photon in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distribution of the energy of the system formed by the highest-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ forward jet and the photon in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions. The first and last bins include the underflow and overflow, respectively.

Distribution of the $\eta$ of the $b$-tagged jet in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions.

Distribution of the reconstructed top-quark mass in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions. The first and last bins include the underflow and overflow, respectively.

Distribution of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the top-quark and photon system in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distribution of the photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distribution of the photon $\eta$ in the $\geq$1fj$\,$SR in data and for the sum of all processes expectations before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions.

Ordered list of the 30 systematic uncertainties with the largest impact on the measured signal normalisation in the fit to data in the parton-level measurement considered as nuisance parameters (NPs) in the profile-likelihood fit. The column "NP value, error" corresponds to the nominal best-fit values and the corresponding uncertainties. The impact of each NP, $\Delta\sigma$/$\sigma_{\mathrm{pred}}$, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of the POI ($\sigma$/$\sigma_{\mathrm{pred}}$) with the result of the fits when fixing the considered NP to its best-fit value shifted by its pre-fit and post-fit uncertainties. The corresponding impacts are listed in the "POI impact prefit high/low" and "POI impact high/low" columns, respectively. The "MC stat." NPs represent the MC statistical uncertainty and they enter the likelihood with a Poisson term, while all the other NPs enter the likelihood via a Gaussian term.

Ordered list of the 30 systematic uncertainties with the largest impact on the measured signal normalisation in the fit to data in the particle-level measurement considered as nuisance parameters (NPs) in the profile-likelihood fit. The column "NP value, error" corresponds to the nominal best-fit values and the corresponding uncertainties. The impact of each NP, $\Delta\sigma$/$\sigma_{\mathrm{pred}}$, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of the POI ($\sigma$/$\sigma_{\mathrm{pred}}$) with the result of the fits when fixing the considered NP to its best-fit value shifted by its pre-fit and post-fit uncertainties. The corresponding impacts are listed in the "POI impact prefit high/low" and "POI impact high/low" columns, respectively. The "MC stat." NPs represent the MC statistical uncertainty and they enter the likelihood with a Poisson term, while all the other NPs enter the likelihood via a Gaussian term.

This table lists the kinematic requirements on parton-level objects used to define of the fiducial phase space for the parton-level measurement. Frixione isolation ($\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9801442}{\text{hep-ph/9801442}}$) with a chosen radius of $\Delta R = 0.2$ is applied to photons ($\gamma$). The measured fiducial parton-level cross section is $\sigma_{tq\gamma}\times\mathcal{B}(t\rightarrow l\nu b) = 688\pm 23(\text{stat.})^{+75}_{-71}(\text{syst.})\,$fb.

This table lists the kinematic requirements on particle-level objects used to define of the fiducial phase space for the particle-level measurement. The particle level objects are photons ($\gamma$) not from a hadron decay, neutrinos not from a hadron decay ($\nu$), prompt electrons and muons ($\ell$) "dressed" by adding close-by ($\Delta R < 0.1$) photons, and anti-$k_t$ $R = 0.4$ jets built from stable particles ($\tau > 30\,$ps) and tau leptons excluding neutrinos and prompt dressed muons. Jets are $b$-tagged ($b$-jet) using ghost-matched $b$-hadrons with $p_{\text{T}} > 5\,$GeV. Apart from the kinematic requirements, isolation and overlap removal criteria are applied. Jets within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of a photon are removed if the $p_{\text{T}}$ of charged particles within $\Delta R = 0.3$ of the photon is smaller than $10\,\%$ of its $p_{\text{T}}$. Jets within $\Delta R = 0.4$ of a lepton are removed. Events are removed where a photon is close ($\Delta R < 0.4$) to a lepton or a surviving jet. The measured fiducial particle-level cross section is $\sigma_{tq\gamma}\times\mathcal{B}(t\rightarrow l\nu b)+\sigma_{t(\rightarrow l\nu b\gamma)q} = 303\pm 9(\text{stat.})^{+33}_{-32}(\text{syst.})\,$fb.

Di-muon mass distribution for the $\mu\mu\mu$ signal region for data and expected background. The expected signal distribution for $m_a = 35$ GeV is shown assuming $\sigma(t\bar{t}a)\times \text{Br}(a\rightarrow\mu\mu) = 4$ fb. Rare background processes include $ZZ+$jets, $WWZ$, $WZZ$, $ZZZ$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$.

Fit of the Double Crystal Ball width as a function of the $a$-boson mass in the $e\mu\mu$ channel.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limit on signal cross section as a function of $m_a$ for $t\bar{t}a$.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limit on signal cross section as a function of $m_a$ for $H^{+}\rightarrow aW$, considering a top pair cross section of $\sigma(pp\rightarrow t\bar{t})= 833$ pb for the charged Higgs boson mass, $m_{H^{+}} = 120$ GeV.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limit on signal cross section as a function of $m_a$ for $H^{+}\rightarrow aW$, considering a top pair cross section of $\sigma(pp\rightarrow t\bar{t})= 833$ pb for the charged Higgs boson mass, $m_{H^{+}} = 140$ GeV.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limit on signal cross section as a function of $m_a$ for $H^{+}\rightarrow aW$, considering a top pair cross section of $\sigma(pp\rightarrow t\bar{t})= 833$ pb for the charged Higgs boson mass, $m_{H^{+}} = 160$ GeV.

Comparison of the expected background with data in a region dominated by non-prompt background. The region is defined exactly like the $e\mu\mu$ signal region but requiring the two selected muons to have the same electrical charge.

Scan of the observed p-value as a function of $m_a$ for the background-only hypothesis.

Scan of the observed p-value as a function of $m_a$ for the background-only hypothesis for $e\mu\mu$ channel.

Scan of the observed p-value as a function of $m_a$ for the background-only hypothesis for $\mu\mu\mu$ channel.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $t\bar{t}a$, $a\rightarrow \mu\mu$ signal as a function of the $m_a$ hypothesis.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $t \rightarrow bH^+$, $H^+ \rightarrow W^+ a$, $a\rightarrow \mu\mu$ signal as a function of the $m_a$ and $m_{H^+}$ hypotheses, for the $e\mu\mu$ signal region. The upper left region of the plot corresponds to signals for which on-shell decays of $H^+ \rightarrow Wa$ are not possible. The CP conjugate process is also included.

Acceptance times efficiency for the $t \rightarrow bH^+ $, $H^+ \rightarrow W^+ a$, $a\rightarrow \mu\mu$ signal as a function of the $m_a$ and $m_{H^+}$ hypotheses, for the $\mu\mu\mu$ signal region. The upper left region of the plot corresponds to signals for which on-shell decays of $H^+ \rightarrow Wa$ are not possible. The CP conjugate process is also included.

Expected lower limits on $\tan\beta$ for the $t\rightarrow H^{+}b, H^{+}\rightarrow aW, a\rightarrow\mu\mu$ signal in the context of the 2HDM as a function of $m_{H^{+}}$ and $m_a$.

Observed lower limits on $\tan\beta$ for the $t\rightarrow H^{+}b, H^{+}\rightarrow aW, a\rightarrow\mu\mu$ signal in the context of the 2HDM as a function of $m_{H^{+}}$ and $m_a$.

Cutflow for two signal mass points for $t\bar{t}a$, $m_{a} = 20$ GeV and $m_{a} = 60$ GeV, and one signal mass point for $H^+ \rightarrow Wa$ for the electron channel $e\mu\mu$. For the signal yields, a cross section times branching ratio of 1 fb is assumed. The yields are presented before the profile likelihood fit.

Cutflow for the dominant backgrounds estimated from simulation ($t\bar{t}Z$, $WZ$, $t\bar{t}H$) and data, for the electron channel $e\mu\mu$. The yields are presented before the profile likelihood fit.

Cutflow for the signal mass point $t\bar{t}a$, $m_{a} = 20$ GeV, as well as the dominant backgrounds estimated from simulation ($t\bar{t}Z$, $WZ$, $t\bar{t}H$) and data, for the corresponding signal mass hypothesis, for the muon channel $\mu\mu\mu$. For the signal yields, a cross section times branching ratio of 1 fb is assumed. The yields are presented before the profile likelihood fit.

Cutflow for the signal mass point $t\bar{t}a$, $m_{a} = 60$ GeV, as well as the dominant backgrounds estimated from simulation ($t\bar{t}Z$, $WZ$, $t\bar{t}H$) and data, for the corresponding signal mass hypothesis, for the muon channel $\mu\mu\mu$. For the signal yields, a cross section times branching ratio of 1 fb is assumed. The yields are presented before the profile likelihood fit.

Cutflow for $H^+ \rightarrow W a$ with $m_{H^{+}} = 120$ GeV, $m_{a} = 30$ GeV for the muon channel $\mu\mu\mu$. A cross section times branching ratio of 1 fb is assumed. The yields are presented before the profile likelihood fit.

Total yields in the $e\mu\mu$ and $\mu\mu\mu$ signal regions for the expected background and data after the profile likelihood fit for a $m_a = 30$ GeV signal mass hypothesis.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed 90% CL upper limits on $\epsilon^{2}$, assuming of $\alpha_{D}=0.1$, as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 20 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 30 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 40 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 50 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 60 GeV

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on $\alpha_{D}\epsilon^{2}$ as a function of $m_{A'}$ at dark Higgs boson mass of 70 GeV

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

Expected and observed 95% CL for the 1SFH mu Majorana model.

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

Expected and observed 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Majorana model.

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

Expected and observed 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model.

Cutflow for six simulated signal channels showing the weighted number of expected events based on the single-flavour mixing model in the Majorana limit. Each column uses the generated signal sample with the mass hypothesis $m_N = 10$ GeV and proper decay length $c\tau_N = 10$ mm.

Cutflow for the six channels in data showing the number of events passing each successive signal selection for Majorana HNLs.

The event selection efficiency for each mass-lifetime point in all six studied channels. Shown is the fraction of the produced MC simulation events that pass all signal region selections. An entry of 0 indicates no events were selected.

The dominant signal uncertainty is due to differences in reconstruction of displaced vertices and tracks between data and MC. This is evaluated by comparing $K^{0}_{S} \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ event yields in the VR and in MC produced with Pythia8.186 in bins of $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $r_\mathrm{DV}$. The data/MC ratio is normalized to the bin nearest the IP where the tracking and vertexing reconstruction algorithms are expected to be most robust. The symmetrized difference from 1.0 is applied to each signal vertex as a per-event systematic variation.

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 1SFH e Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 1SFH e Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 1SFH e Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 1SFH e Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 1SFH u Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 1SFH u Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 1SFH u Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 1SFH u Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 2QDH (NH) Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 2QDH (NH) Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 2QDH (NH) Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 2QDH (NH) Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 2QDH (IH) Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 2QDH (IH) Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 2QDH (IH) Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 2QDH (IH) Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).

The total displaced vertexing efficiency as a function of $r_{DV}$ for the custom configuration used in this analysis. The definition of the secondary vertex efficiency can be found in defined in \cite{ATL-PHYS-PUB-2019-013}. The efficiency is shown for $\mu-\mu\mu$, $\mu-\mu e$ and $\mu-ee$ signals with $m_N=10$~GeV and $c\tau_N=10$~mm.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\Sigma E_{T}$ vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV

$\Sigma E_{T}$ vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.