The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, 0 forward jet, $t\leq 0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, 0 forward jet, $t>0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, $\geq 1$ forward jet, $t\leq 0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, $\geq 1$ forward jet, $t>0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, $t\leq 0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, $t>0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, different flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, same flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the 1 b jet, different flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the 1 b jet, same flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The model-independent 95\% CL limits on production cross section for new physics processes for the scalar interaction. The expected limit is shown by the black dashed line with the 68 and 95\% CL uncertainty bands in green and yellow, respectively, while the observed limit is shown by the solid black line. Theoretical LO cross section values for the DM model and their associated uncertainties are also presented (grey line).

The model-independent 95\% CL limits on production cross section for new physics processes for the pseudoscalar interaction. The expected limit is shown by the black dashed line with the 68 and 95\% CL uncertainty bands in green and yellow, respectively, while the observed limit is shown by the solid black line. Theoretical LO cross section values for the DM model and their associated uncertainties are also presented (grey line).

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the QCD control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the tt(1l) control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the W+jets control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the Z(2l) control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the W+jets control region in the single lepton channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the tt(2l) control region in the single lepton channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $(N_{\text{jet}},N_{\text{bjet}})$ distribution of the ttZ control region in the dileptonic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN distribution of the Drell-Yan control region in the dileptonic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking periods, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM scalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM scalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM t-channel scalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel scalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM t-channel pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel scalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

The 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Z' \rightarrow \chi \chi$) times branching ratio B in fb with all statistical and systematic uncertainties, for the $R_{\text{inv}}=$0.6 signal points.

Data yield in the PFN signal region.

Yield of data in the ANTELOPE signal region in the binning used for BumpHunter fitting.

Observed best fit differential cross section for the $|y_{H}|$ observable

Observed best fit differential cross section for the $m_{jj}$ (GeV) observable

Observed best fit differential cross section for the $\Delta\eta_{jj}$ observable.

Observed best fit differential cross section for the $\tau_{C}^{j}$ (GeV) observable

Bin-to-bin correlation matrix for the $p_{T}^{H}$ spectrum

Bin-to-bin correlation matrix for the $N_{jets}$ spectrum

Bin-to-bin correlation matrix for the $p_{T}^{j0}$ spectrum

Bin-to-bin correlation matrix for the $|y_{H}|$ spectrum

Bin-to-bin correlation matrix for the $m_{jj}$ spectrum

Bin-to-bin correlation matrix for the $\Delta\eta_{jj}$ spectrum

Bin-to-bin correlation matrix for the $\tau_{C}^{j}$ spectrum

Rotation matrix for the PCA of the SMEFT Wilson coefficients

Correlation matrix of the linear combinations of Wilson coefficients obtained from the PCA, obtained by fitting the observed data to the $p_{T}^{H}$ spectra of all decay channels.

Summary of observed and expected confidence intervals for the first eigenvectors obtained from the PCA of the SMEFT Wilson coefficients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the LQ-fermion couplings, $|y_{e u}|$, versus $S_{e u}$ mass for scalar LQs coupled to electrons.

Observed and Expected UL exclusions on the $BR(H\to S)$ of generic signals with $m_{A'} = 1.0\;GeV$ and $BR(A' \rightarrow \pi\pi) = 1.0$.

The observed data in the dielectron channel and the fitted signal-plus-background templates, shown for the $S_{e d}$ scenario with a candidate LQ mass of 2.5 TeV. Distributions of events are binned in the reconstructed dilepton mass, rapidity, and cosine theta.

Observed and Expected UL exclusions on the number of 'signal' yields in sideband A from the model agnostic fit, assuming no 'SUEP-like' signal contamination in the CRs.

Upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the LQ-fermion couplings, $|y_{e d}|$, versus $S_{e d}$ mass for scalar LQs coupled to electrons.

Postfit values for SR in the B-Only CR+SR and CR-Only fits with the prefit signal overlayed for reference

The observed data in the dimuon channel and the fitted signal-plus-background templates, shown for the $S_{\mu u}$ scenario with a candidate LQ mass of 2.5 TeV. Distributions of events are binned in the reconstructed dilepton mass, rapidity, and cosine theta.

Postfit values for PR in the B-Only CR+SR and CR-Only fits with the prefit signal overlayed for reference

Upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the LQ-fermion couplings, $|y_{\mu u}|$, versus $S_{\mu u}$ mass for scalar LQs coupled to muons.

Postfit values for CRDY in the B-Only CR+SR and CR-Only fits with the prefit signal overlayed for reference

The observed data in the dimuon channel and the fitted signal-plus-background templates, shown for the $S_{\mu d}$ scenario with a candidate LQ mass of 2.5 TeV. Distributions of events are binned in the reconstructed dilepton mass, rapidity, and cosine theta.

Postfit values for CRTT in the B-Only CR+SR and CR-Only fits with the prefit signal overlayed for reference

Upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the LQ-fermion couplings, $|y_{\mu d}|$, versus $S_{\mu d}$ mass for scalar LQs coupled to muons.

Per-selection efficiencies on Generic - $m_{A'} = 1.0\;GeV$ $BR(A' \rightarrow \pi\pi) = 1.0$ Hadronic - $m_{A'} = 0.7\;GeV$ and $BR(A' \rightarrow ee) = BR(A' \rightarrow \mu\mu) = 0.15$ $BR(A' \rightarrow \pi\pi) = 0.7$ Leptonic - $m_{A'} = 0.5\;GeV$ and $BR(A' \rightarrow ee) = BR(A' \rightarrow \mu\mu) = 0.2$ and $BR(A' \rightarrow \pi\pi) = 0.6$ samples. Selections: 2 OSSF leptons, one SUEP cluster, $60\leq Z_{m}\leq 120$ GeV, $p_{T}^Z\geq 25$ GeV, veto events with b-tagged jets, $p_{T}^{SUEP} > 60\;GeV$, and $dR^{Ak4}_{Ak15} < 1.5$. Efficiencies are the ratio of the histogram size at the selection step to the previous step (except twoLepton vs. initial). The final column is the total cumulative efficiency (dR vs. initial). Note that these selection numbers were all calculated using samples generated with 600,000 events for each signal point considered.

The observed data in the dielectron channel and the fitted signal-plus-background templates, shown for the $V_{e u}$ scenario with a candidate LQ mass of 2.5 TeV. Distributions of events are binned in the reconstructed dilepton mass, rapidity, and cosine theta.

Interpolated observed and expected UL exclusions on $BR(H\to S) = 1$ for generic signals with $m_{A'} = 1.0\;GeV$ and $BR(A' \rightarrow \pi\pi) = 1.0$. The discreate heatmap points can be found in the UL Generic (Observed & Expected) figure in this sandbox

Upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the LQ-fermion couplings, $|g_{e u}|$, versus $V_{e u}$ mass for vector LQs coupled to electrons.

The observed data in the dielectron channel and the fitted signal-plus-background templates, shown for the $V_{e d}$ scenario with a candidate LQ mass of 2.5 TeV. Distributions of events are binned in the reconstructed dilepton mass, rapidity, and cosine theta.

Upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the LQ-fermion couplings, $|g_{e d}|$, versus $V_{e d}$ mass for vector LQs coupled to electrons.

The observed data in the dimuon channel and the fitted signal-plus-background templates, shown for the $V_{\mu u}$ scenario with a candidate LQ mass of 2.5 TeV. Distributions of events are binned in the reconstructed dilepton mass, rapidity, and cosine theta.

Upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the LQ-fermion couplings, $|g_{\mu u}|$, versus $V_{\mu u}$ mass for vector LQs coupled to muons.

The observed data in the dimuon channel and the fitted signal-plus-background templates, shown for the $V_{\mu d}$ scenario with a candidate LQ mass of 2.5 TeV. Distributions of events are binned in the reconstructed dilepton mass, rapidity, and cosine theta.

Upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the LQ-fermion couplings, $|g_{\mu d}|$, versus $V_{\mu d}$ mass for vector LQs coupled to muons.

Postfit distributions of the magnitude of the hadronic recoil $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the SR (t-pass) and SR (t-fail) after a fit of the background model to the data. The last bin of each distribution also contains events with $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV. The background processes are stacked together. A representative mono-top signal (vector coupling scenario) with a mediator mass of 1 TeV, a DM candidate mass of 150 GeV, and a cross section of 1 pb is overlaid as an orange line. The gray band represents the statistical and postfit systematic uncertainties in the predicted background yields after the fit.

Postfit distributions of the magnitude of the hadronic recoil $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the SR (t-pass) and SR (t-fail) after a fit of the background model to the data. The last bin of each distribution also contains events with $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV. The background processes are stacked together. A representative mono-top signal (vector coupling scenario) with a mediator mass of 1 TeV, a DM candidate mass of 150 GeV, and a cross section of 1 pb is overlaid as an orange line. The gray band represents the statistical and postfit systematic uncertainties in the predicted background yields after the fit.

Postfit distributions of the magnitude of the hadronic recoil $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the W(e$\nu$) (t-pass) and W(e$\nu$) (t-fail) CRs after a fit of the background model to the data. The last bin of each distribution also contains events with $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV. The background processes are stacked together. The gray band represents the statistical and postfit systematic uncertainties in the predicted background yields after the fit.

Postfit distributions of the magnitude of the hadronic recoil $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the W(e$\nu$) (t-pass) and W(e$\nu$) (t-fail) CRs after a fit of the background model to the data. The last bin of each distribution also contains events with $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV. The background processes are stacked together. The gray band represents the statistical and postfit systematic uncertainties in the predicted background yields after the fit.

Postfit distributions of the magnitude of the hadronic recoil $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the W($\mu\nu$) (t-pass) and W($\mu\nu$) (t-fail) CRs after a fit of the background model to the data. The last bin of each distribution also contains events with $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV. The background processes are stacked together. The gray band represents the statistical and postfit systematic uncertainties in the predicted background yields after the fit.

Postfit distributions of the magnitude of the hadronic recoil $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the W($\mu\nu$) (t-pass) and W($\mu\nu$) (t-fail) CRs after a fit of the background model to the data. The last bin of each distribution also contains events with $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV. The background processes are stacked together. The gray band represents the statistical and postfit systematic uncertainties in the predicted background yields after the fit.

Postfit distributions of the magnitude of the hadronic recoil $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the Z(ee) (t-pass) and Z(ee) (t-fail) CRs after a fit of the background model to the data. The last bin of each distribution also contains events with $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV. The background processes are stacked together. The gray band represents the statistical and postfit systematic uncertainties in the predicted background yields after the fit.

Postfit distributions of the magnitude of the hadronic recoil $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the Z(ee) (t-pass) and Z(ee) (t-fail) CRs after a fit of the background model to the data. The last bin of each distribution also contains events with $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV. The background processes are stacked together. The gray band represents the statistical and postfit systematic uncertainties in the predicted background yields after the fit.

Postfit distributions of the magnitude of the hadronic recoil $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the Z($\mu\mu$) (t-pass) and Z($\mu\mu$) (t-fail) CRs after a fit of the background model to the data. The last bin of each distribution also contains events with $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV. The background processes are stacked together. The gray band represents the statistical and postfit systematic uncertainties in the predicted background yields after the fit.

Postfit distributions of the magnitude of the hadronic recoil $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the Z($\mu\mu$) (t-pass) and Z($\mu\mu$) (t-fail) CRs after a fit of the background model to the data. The last bin of each distribution also contains events with $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV. The background processes are stacked together. The gray band represents the statistical and postfit systematic uncertainties in the predicted background yields after the fit.

Postfit distributions of the magnitude of the hadronic recoil $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the t$\bar{t}$ (e$\nu$) (t-pass) and t$\bar{t}$ (e$\nu$) (t-fail) CRs after a fit of the background model to the data. The last bin of each distribution also contains events with $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV. The background processes are stacked together. The gray band represents the statistical and postfit systematic uncertainties in the predicted background yields after the fit.

Postfit distributions of the magnitude of the hadronic recoil $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the t$\bar{t}$ (e$\nu$) (t-pass) and t$\bar{t}$ (e$\nu$) (t-fail) CRs after a fit of the background model to the data. The last bin of each distribution also contains events with $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV. The background processes are stacked together. The gray band represents the statistical and postfit systematic uncertainties in the predicted background yields after the fit.

Postfit distributions of the magnitude of the hadronic recoil $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the tt ($\mu\nu$) (t-pass) and tt ($\mu\nu$) (t-fail) CRs after a fit of the background model to the data. The last bin of each distribution also contains events with $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV. The background processes are stacked together. The gray band represents the statistical and postfit systematic uncertainties in the predicted background yields after the fit.

Postfit distributions of the magnitude of the hadronic recoil $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the tt ($\mu\nu$) (t-pass) and tt ($\mu\nu$) (t-fail) CRs after a fit of the background model to the data. The last bin of each distribution also contains events with $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV. The background processes are stacked together. The gray band represents the statistical and postfit systematic uncertainties in the predicted background yields after the fit.

Postfit distributions of the magnitude of the hadronic recoil $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the $\gamma$ (t-pass) and $\gamma$ (t-fail) CRs after a fit of the background model to the data. The last bin of each distribution also contains events with $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV. The background processes are stacked together. The gray band represents the statistical and postfit systematic uncertainties in the predicted background yields after the fit.

Postfit distributions of the magnitude of the hadronic recoil $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the $\gamma$ (t-pass) and $\gamma$ (t-fail) CRs after a fit of the background model to the data. The last bin of each distribution also contains events with $R_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV. The background processes are stacked together. The gray band represents the statistical and postfit systematic uncertainties in the predicted background yields after the fit.

Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma\mathcal{B}$ of mono-top production presented in the two- dimensional plane spanned by the mediator and DM candidate masses for a mediator mass between 200 and 2250 GeV and a DM candidate mass between 1 and 1125 GeV only consider- ing on-shell decays of the mediator to the DM candidates. The mediator has vector couplings to quarks and DM candidates in the upper plot and axial-vector couplings in the lower plot. The median expected exclusion range is indicated by a black solid line, demonstrating the search sensitivity of the analysis. The 68% probability interval of the expected exclusion is shown in black dashed lines. Contours of theory predictions for constant values of $\sigma\mathcal{B}$ are shown in gray dashed lines. The observed exclusion contour of mediator and DM candidate masses is rep- resented by the red solid line. The exclusion contour obtained from measurements of the DM relic density $\Omega_{\mathrm{nbm}}h^2$ by the Planck Collaboration is shown in the gray solid line.

Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma\mathcal{B}$ of mono-top production presented in the two- dimensional plane spanned by the mediator and DM candidate masses for a mediator mass between 200 and 2250 GeV and a DM candidate mass between 1 and 1125 GeV only consider- ing on-shell decays of the mediator to the DM candidates. The mediator has vector couplings to quarks and DM candidates in the upper plot and axial-vector couplings in the lower plot. The median expected exclusion range is indicated by a black solid line, demonstrating the search sensitivity of the analysis. The 68% probability interval of the expected exclusion is shown in black dashed lines. Contours of theory predictions for constant values of $\sigma\mathcal{B}$ are shown in gray dashed lines. The observed exclusion contour of mediator and DM candidate masses is rep- resented by the red solid line. The exclusion contour obtained from measurements of the DM relic density $\Omega_{\mathrm{nbm}}h^2$ by the Planck Collaboration is shown in the gray solid line.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Event data from Z-dominated SR