Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the compressed SUSY simplified model with a bino-like LSP and wino-like NLSPs being considered. These are shown with $\pm1\sigma_\text{exp}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm1\sigma^{\text{SUSY}}_{\text{theory}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the ATLAS searches using the soft lepton signature is illustrated by the blue region while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in grey.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the compressed SUSY simplified model with a bino-like LSP and wino-like NLSPs being considered. These are shown with $\pm1\sigma_ ext{exp}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm1\sigma^{ ext{SUSY}}_{ ext{theory}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the ATLAS searches using the soft lepton signature is illustrated by the blue region while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in grey.

The expected upper limits on the cross-sections at 95% CL for the simplified SUSY model featuring the production of mass-degenerate pairs of wino-like $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$ particles in association with at least two jets. The production modes considered are $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$.

The observed upper limits on the cross-sections at 95% CL for the simplified SUSY model featuring the production of mass-degenerate pairs of wino-like $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$ particles in association with at least two jets. The production modes considered are $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$.

Truth-level signal acceptances in $\text{SR}_\text{2j}$ with BDT score $\in [0.88, 1.0]$. All of the considered production modes ($\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$) are included. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation. The generator-level selections are the same as the ones at reconstruction level.

Truth-level signal acceptances in $\text{SR}_{\geq\text{3j}}$ with BDT score $\in [0.88, 1.0]$. All of the considered production modes ($\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$) are included. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation. The generator-level selections are the same as the ones at reconstruction level.

Signal efficiencies in $\text{SR}_\text{2j}$ with BDT score $\in [0.88, 1.0]$. All of the considered production modes ($\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$) are included. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. The generator-level selections are the same as the ones at reconstruction level.

Signal efficiencies in $\text{SR}_{\geq\text{3j}}$ with BDT score $\in [0.88, 1.0]$. All of the considered production modes ($\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\mp}$, $\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$) are included. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. The generator-level selections are the same as the ones at reconstruction level.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde\chi^0_2) =100~\text{GeV}$ and $\Delta m(\tilde\chi^0_2 / \tilde\chi^\pm_1,\tilde\chi^0_1) = 0.2~\text{GeV}, 1.0~\text{GeV},$ and $5.0~\text{GeV}$. The first number in the column for each mass point corresponds to the signal event yield after applying the associated cut while the second number in parentheses represents the efficiency with respect to the previous cut. All of the production modes are included. The total cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma$) includes the cuts applied at parton level as described in the main text.

Distributions of the $\mathrm{NN^{SvsB}}$ output for data and the expected background after the likelihood fit in the $SR_{cQu --}$ signal region. The post-fit background expectations are shown as filled histograms, the combined pre-fit background expectations are shown as dashed lines. The signal distribution using the Wilson coefficient values $c_{tu}^{(1)}=0.04$, $c_{Qu}^{(1)}=0.1$, $c_{Qu}^{(8)}=0.1$ is shown with a dotted line, normalized to the same number of events as the background.

Summary of the observed and predicted number of events in the five 2$\ell$ control regions. The background prediction is shown after the combined likelihood fit to data under the signal-plus-background hypothesis across all control regions and signal regions. The uncertainties in the total yields are smaller than the sum in quadrature of the uncertainties in the individual contributions due to anti-correlations resulting from the likelihood fit. Int Conv refers to events with photon conversions in the inner detector, while Mat Conv refers to events with photon conversions in the detector material. QMisID refers to events with charge-misidentified lepton.

Summary of the observed and predicted number of events in the four 3$\ell$ control regions. The background prediction is shown after the combined likelihood fit to data under the signal-plus-background hypothesis across all control regions and signal regions. The uncertainties in the total yields are smaller than the sum in quadrature of the uncertainties in the individual contributions due to anti-correlations resulting from the likelihood fit. Int Conv refers to events with photon conversions in the inner detector, while Mat Conv refers to events with photon conversions in the detector material. QMisID refers to events with charge-misidentified lepton.

Comparison of the observed limits on the three WCs to the limit obtained by the ATLAS Run~1 analysis of events with $b$-tagged jets and a same-sign lepton pair [JHEP10(2015)150]. The cross-section limits from that analysis are converted to the limits on the WCs by using the fitted EFT parametrization. The bounds on the WCs are shown at the 68$\%$ CL (solid) and/or 95$\%$ CL (dashed) levels. For the ATLAS Run~1 analysis only the bounds at 95$\%$ CL are available. The vertical bar represents the SM prediction. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$.

Observed lower limits at 95$\%$ confidence level on the scale of new physics $\Lambda$ for Wilson coefficient values of 0.01, 1 and $4\pi^2$. The limits are compared with the limits obtained by the ATLAS Run~1 analysis of events with $b$-tagged jets and a same-sign lepton pair.

Observed and expected limits at 95$\%$ confidence level on the cross-section of $\sigma(pp \rightarrow tt)$.

2D likelihood scans of the Wilson coefficients $c_{tu}^{(1)}$ versus $c_{Qu}^{(1)}$. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient pair.

2D likelihood scans of the Wilson coefficients $c_{tu}^{(1)}$ versus $c_{Qu}^{(8)}$. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient pair.

2D likelihood scans of the Wilson coefficients $c_{Qu}^{(1)}$ versus $c_{Qu}^{(8)}$. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient pair.

1D-likelihood scan for $c_{tu}^{(1)}$. The observed and expected limits at 68\% and 95\% confidence level (CL) can be read off by finding the intersection of the likelihood scan curve with the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ lines. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient value.

1D-likelihood scan for $c_{Qu}^{(1)}$. The observed and expected limits at 68\% and 95\% confidence level (CL) can be read off by finding the intersection of the likelihood scan curve with the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ lines. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient value.

1D-likelihood scan for $c_{Qu}^{(8)}$. The observed and expected limits at 68\% and 95\% confidence level (CL) can be read off by finding the intersection of the likelihood scan curve with the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ lines. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient value.

Post-fit distribution of the GNN score evaluated with $m_{H/A}$ = 400 GeV in the validation region in the 2LOS region with $\geq 8$ jets. These regions do not enter the fit. The post-fit background prediction is obtained using the post-fit nuisance parameters from the background-only fit in the control and signal regions.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times branching ratio,$ \sigma(pp \rightarrow t\bar{t}H/A ) \times B(H/A \rightarrow t\bar{t})$, as a function of $m_{H/A}$, obtained using the 1L/2LOS final states.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario where both the scalar $H$ and pseudo-scalar $A$ contribute with $m_H = m_A$ is shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario with the contribution from scalar $H$ only is shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario with the contribution from pseudo-scalar $A$ only is shown.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times branching ratio,$ \sigma(pp \rightarrow t\bar{t}H/A ) \times B(H/A \rightarrow t\bar{t})$, as a function of $m_{H/A}$, obtained from the combination of the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML final states.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario where both the scalar $H$ and pseudo-scalar $A$ contribute with $m_H = m_A$ is shown.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario with the contribution from scalar $H$ only is shown.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on tanβ as a function of the $m_{H/A}$ mass obtained using the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML final states, assuming a Type-II 2HDM in the alignment limit. Values of tanβ below the observed limit are excluded. The scenario with the contribution from pseudo-scalar $A$ only is shown.

Expected and Observed 95% CL upper limits on the $ \sigma(pp \rightarrow t\bar{t})\times B(S_8\rightarrow t\bar{t})$ production cross-section as a function of $m_{S_8}$, obtained from the combination of the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML final states. The expected limits from the individual 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/ML analyses are also shown.

Post-fit distribution of the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A}$ = 700 GeV in the 1L region with $\geq 10$ jets and four $b$-tagged jets. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis.

Post-fit distribution of the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A}$ = 700 GeV in the 2LOS region with $\geq 8$ jets and $\geq 4$ $b$-tagged jets. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis.

Post-fit distribution of the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A}=$1000 GeV,in the 1L region with $\geq 10$ jets four $b$-tagged jets. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis.

Post-fit distribution of the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A}=$1000 GeV in the 2LOS region with $\geq 8$ jets and $\geq 4$ $b$-tagged jets. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, Sum of the pcb scores of the six jets with the highest scores ($\sum_{i\in[1,6]}\mathrm{pcb}_i$), in the region where the training is performed, i.e., the region with $\geq 9$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 1L channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, Sum of the pcb scores of the six jets with the highest scores ($\sum_{i\in[1,6]}\mathrm{pcb}_i$), in the region where the training is performed i.e.the region with $\geq 7$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 2LOS channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ sum of all reconstructed leptons and jets ($\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{all}}$), in the region where the training is performed, i.e., the region with $\geq 9$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 1L channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ sum of all reconstructed leptons and jets ($\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{all}}$), in the region where the training is performed, i.e. the region with $\geq 7$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 2LOS channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, Number of jets, in the region where the training is performed, i.e., the region with $\geq 9$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 1L channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.

Post-fit distribution of the most important global features used in the GNN training, Number of jets, in the region where the training is performed, i.e., the region with $\geq 7$ jets and $\geq3$ $b$-tagged jets in the 2LOS channel. The fit is performed under the background-only hypothesis using the GNN scores evaluated with $m_{H/A} = 400$ GeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.5. The expected limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of the universal coupling constant and the $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma/m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 50%, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of the universal coupling constant and the $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma/m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 50%, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of the universal coupling constant and the $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma/m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 50%, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of the universal coupling constant and the $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma/m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 50%, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.OSML 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.HTZT 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Monotop 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.OSML 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.HTZT 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Observed upper limits at 95% CL on the $T$ quark mass as a function of the relative resonance width ($\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}}$) and the relative coupling parameter $\xi_W$.

Expected upper limits at 95% CL on the $T$ quark mass as a function of the relative resonance width ($\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}}$) and the relative coupling parameter $\xi_W$.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.7. The expected limits for the individual analyses are shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.7. The expected limits for the individual analyses are shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.3. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.5. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.7. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.3. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.5. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.7. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown.

Obs.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.OSML 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.HTZT 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.Monotop 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.OSML 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.HTZT 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

The cutflow table for $N1$ and $N2$ signal samples for different mass points. The samples consist of both $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ final states in equal ratio. Each sample is normalized to a total cross-section of 0.1 pb. The abbreviations used in the table are, SC = Same Charge, SF = Same Flavor.

The cutflow table for $N3$ signal samples for different mass points. The samples consist of both $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ final states in equal ratio. Each sample is normalized to a total cross-section of 10 pb. The abbreviations used in the table are, SS = Same Charge, SF = Same Flavor.

Expected and observed upper limits on the strength of HNL mixing with electron neutrinos

Expected and observed upper limits on the strength of HNL mixing with muon neutrinos

Expected and observed upper limits on the strength of HNL mixing with tau neutrinos

Invariant mass $m_{J}$ of the resonance candidates in the region defined with forward photon $\eta_{\gamma} > 1.3$ and anti-tagged large-$R$ jet after the fit to data under the background-only hypothesis. The total systematic uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Three representative $Z^{`}$ signal distributions are overlaid as red lines. The signal is shown for $g_q=0.2$ with production cross sections of 309 fb, 143 fb, and 34.2 fb for $m_{Z^{`}}=(20,~50,~\text{and}~125~\text{GeV}$), respectively.

Observed (expected) upper exclusion limits at 95$\%$ CL on the coupling strength $g_q$ of a new vector $Z^{`}$ particle decaying to a $q\bar q$ pair for a LHC DM WG benchmark signal model where decay rates for all decay modes except $Z^{`}\to q \bar q$ are set to 0, and the interference between the $Z^{`}$ and the SM $Z$ boson is neglected.

Observed (solid lines) and expected (dashed lines) upper exclusion limits at 95$\%$ CL on the product of the $Z^{`}$ production production cross section, branching ratio for $Z^{`}\to q\bar q$ and acceptance ($\sigma_{Z^{`}}\times B(Z^{`}\to q\bar q)\times A$) of a new $Z^{`}$ resonance for a LHC DM WG benchmark signal model where all decay modes except $Z^{`}\to q \bar q$ are set to 0, and the interference between the $Z^{`}$ and the SM $Z$ boson is neglected.

Distribution of the reconstructed $\tau\tau$ invariant mass ($m_{\tau\tau}$) for all events in the VBF_1 signal region for $p_{\text{T}}^{H}>200$ GeV. The observed Higgs boson signal corresponds to $(\sigma\times B)/(\sigma\times B)_{\text{SM}}\,=\,0.99$. Entries with values above the $x$-axis range are shown in the last bin of each distribution. The prediction for each sample is determined from the likelihood fit performed to measure the total $pp\rightarrow H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ cross-section.

Distribution of the reconstructed $\tau\tau$ invariant mass ($m_{\tau\tau}$) for all events in the VBF_0 signal region for $m_{jj}<1$ TeV. The observed Higgs boson signal corresponds to $(\sigma\times B)/(\sigma\times B)_{\text{SM}}\,=\,0.99$. Entries with values above the $x$-axis range are shown in the last bin of each distribution. The prediction for each sample is determined from the likelihood fit performed to measure the total $pp\rightarrow H\rightarrow \tau\tau$ cross-section.

Distribution of the reconstructed $\tau\tau$ invariant mass ($m_{\tau\tau}$) for all events in the VBF_0 signal region for $m_{jj}>1$ TeV. The observed Higgs boson signal corresponds to $(\sigma\times B)/(\sigma\times B)_{\text{SM}}\,=\,0.99$. Entries with values above the $x$-axis range are shown in the last bin of each distribution. The prediction for each sample is determined from the likelihood fit performed to measure the total $pp\rightarrow H \rightarrow \tau\tau$ cross-section.

Distribution of the reconstructed $\tau\tau$ invariant mass ($m_{\tau\tau}$) for all events in the VBF_1 signal region for $m_{jj}<1$ TeV. The observed Higgs boson signal corresponds to $(\sigma\times B)/(\sigma\times B)_{\text{SM}}\,=\,0.99$. Entries with values above the $x$-axis range are shown in the last bin of each distribution. The prediction for each sample is determined from the likelihood fit performed to measure the total $pp\rightarrow \rightarrow \tau\tau$ cross-section.

Distribution of the reconstructed $\tau\tau$ invariant mass ($m_{\tau\tau}$) for all events in the VBF_1 signal region for $m_{jj}>1$ TeV. The observed Higgs boson signal corresponds to $(\sigma\times B)/(\sigma\times B)_{\text{SM}}\,=\,0.99$. Entries with values above the $x$-axis range are shown in the last bin of each distribution. The prediction for each sample is determined from the likelihood fit performed to measure the total $pp\rightarrow H\rightarrow \tau\tau$ cross-section.

Comparison of the observed and expected event yields in the ttH categories. The window category contains events with $m_{\tau\tau} \in [100, 150]$ GeV, while events outside of this mass region are included in the sideband region. The observed Higgs boson signal corresponds to $(\sigma\times B)/(\sigma\times B)_{\text{SM}}\,=\,0.99$. The prediction for each sample is determined from the likelihood fit performed to measure the total $pp\rightarrow H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ cross-section.

The measured values of $\sigma_{H}\times B(H\rightarrow\tau\tau)$ relative to the SM expectations in the total (labelled as 'Combined') and per-production-mode fit. The total $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty in each measurement is indicated by the error bar. The total systematic uncertainty in each measurement is also indicated.

The measured values for $\sigma_{H}\times B(H\rightarrow\tau\tau)$ relative to the SM expectations in the simplified template cross-section measurement. The total $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty in each measurement is indicated by the error bar. The total systematic uncertainty in each measurement is also indicated.

Upper limits at 95% CL on simplified template cross-sections in the individual ttH $p_{\text{T}}^{H}$ bins relative to their SM expectation in the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay channel, derived using the CL$_\text{s}$ method. The observed upper limits, together with the expected limits both in the background-only hypothesis and in the SM hypothesis (dotted red lines) are included. In the case of the expected limits in the background-only hypothesis, one- and two-standard-deviation uncertainty bands are also shown.

Measured fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $p_\text{T}(j_0)$. The measurements are compared with particle-level SM predictions from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8, POWHEG+HERWIG7 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO+Pythia8 generators for the combined VBF, ggF, $VH$, and $t\bar{t}H$ Higgs boson production modes. The shaded box around each data point shows the statistical uncertainty, while the total uncertainty is indicated by the error bar. The contribution from the ggF, $VH$, and $t\bar{t}H$ production modes as predicted by POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is also shown.

Measured fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $p_\text{T}^{H}$. The measurements are compared with particle-level SM predictions from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8, POWHEG+HERWIG7 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO+Pythia8 generators for the combined VBF, ggF, $VH$, and $t\bar{t} H$ Higgs boson production modes. The shaded box around each data point shows the statistical uncertainty, while the total uncertainty is indicated by the error bar. The contribution from the ggF, $VH$, and $t\bar{t} H$ production modes as predicted by POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is also shown.

Measured fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$. The measurements are compared with particle-level SM predictions from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8, POWHEG+HERWIG7 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO+Pythia8 generators for the combined VBF, ggF, $VH$, and $t\bar{t}H$ Higgs boson production modes. The shaded box around each data point shows the statistical uncertainty, while the total uncertainty is indicated by the error bar. The contribution from the ggF, $VH$, and $t\bar{t} H$ production modes as predicted by POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is also shown.

Measured fiducial differential cross-sections as a function of $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$ vs $p_\text{T}^\text{H}$. The measurements are compared with particle-level SM predictions from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8, POWHEG+HERWIG7 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO+Pythia8 generators for the combined VBF, ggF, $VH$, and $t\bar{t}H$ Higgs boson production modes. The shaded box around each data point shows the statistical uncertainty, while the total uncertainty is indicated by the error bar. The contribution from the ggF, $VH$, and $t\bar{t}H$ production modes as predicted by POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is also shown.

The unfolded data compared with the nominal SM predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA8, as well as the predictions for several values of Wilson coefficients in the SMEFT, for $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$.

The unfolded data compared with the nominal SM predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA8, as well as the predictions for several values of Wilson coefficients in the SMEFT, for $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$.

The unfolded data compared with the nominal SM predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA8, as well as the predictions for several values of Wilson coefficients in the SMEFT, for $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$ vs $p_\text{T}^{H}$.

The unfolded data compared with the nominal SM predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA8, as well as the predictions for several values of Wilson coefficients in the SMEFT, for $p_\text{T}^{H}$.

The 95% expected and observed confidence intervals for each of the six considered Wilson coefficients. Each coefficient is treated individually and both the linear and linear + quadratic models are considered when evaluating the sensitivity to the terms that enter at $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda^{-4})$. For the CP-even operators the $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$ distribution is used to extract the confidence interval. The limits are computed at a new-physics scale $\Lambda=1$ TeV.

The 95% expected and observed confidence intervals for each of the six considered Wilson coefficients. Each coefficient is treated individually and both the linear and linear + quadratic models are considered when evaluating the sensitivity to the terms that enter at $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda^{-4})$. For the CP-odd operators the $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$ vs $p_\text{T}^{H}$ distribution is used to extract the confidence interval. The limits are computed at a new-physics scale $\Lambda=1$ TeV.

Two-dimensional observed and expected limits at 68% and 95% confidence level obtained from $c_{HW}$ and $c_{HB}$ using only the SM-dimension-6 interference in the SMEFT basis. The limits are computed at a new-physics scale $\Lambda$ = 1 TeV. In this case, the $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{signed}$ distribution is used. IMPORTANT: HEPData requires the same number of rows for each column. However, each curve of on the plot has a different number of points. For that reason, the curves are padded with data of "0.0, 0.0". The "0.0, 0.0" points should be omitted in analysis.

Two-dimensional observed and expected limits at 68% and 95% confidence level obtained from $c_{H\tilde{W}}$ and $c_{H\tilde{B}}$ using only the SM-dimension-6 interference in the SMEFT basis. The limits are computed at a new-physics scale $\Lambda$ = 1 TeV. In this purely CP-odd case, the $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{signed}$ vs $p_{T}^{H}$ distribution is used. IMPORTANT: HEPData requires the same number of rows for each column. However, each curve of on the plot has a different number of points. For that reason, the curves are padded with data of "0.0, 0.0". The "0.0, 0.0" points should be omitted in analysis.

Two-dimensional observed and expected limits at 68% and 95% confidence level obtained from $c_{HW}$ and $c_{H\tilde{W}}$ using only the SM-dimension-6 interference in the SMEFT basis. The limits are computed at a new-physics scale $\Lambda$ = 1 TeV. In this case, the $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{signed}$ distribution is used. IMPORTANT: HEPData requires the same number of rows for each column. However, each curve of on the plot has a different number of points. For that reason, the curves are padded with data of "0.0, 0.0". The "0.0, 0.0" points should be omitted in analysis.

The expected values of $\sigma_{H}\times B(H\rightarrow\tau\tau)$ relative to the SM expectations in the total (labelled as 'Combined') and per-production-mode fit. The total $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty in each measurement is indicated by the error bar. The total systematic uncertainty in each measurement is also indicated.

The expected values for $\sigma_{H}\times B(H\rightarrow\tau\tau)$ relative to the SM expectations in the simplified template cross-section measurement. The total $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty in each measurement is indicated by the error bar. The total systematic uncertainty in each measurement is also indicated.

The measured values for $\sigma_{H}\times B(H\rightarrow\tau\tau)$ in the simplified template cross-section measurement. The total $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty in the measurement is indicated by the black error bars, with the individual contribution from the statistical uncertainty in blue.

The measured correlations between differential fiducial cross-sections, $\sigma$, and the normalisation factors, $\alpha$, for the $Z(\to\tau\tau) + \text{jets}$ and top backgrounds for $p_\text{T}(j_0)$. The bins denoted as $\sigma_{1,2,3,4}$ correspond to the measurements in the four bins listed elsewhere for each observable.

The measured correlations between differential fiducial cross-sections, $\sigma$, and the normalisation factors, $\alpha$, for the $Z(\to\tau\tau) + \text{jets}$ and top backgrounds for $p_\text{T}^{H}}$. The bins denoted as $\sigma_{1,2,3,4}$ correspond to the measurements in the four bins listed elsewhere for each observable.

The measured correlations between differential fiducial cross-sections, $\sigma$, and the normalisation factors, $\alpha$, for the $Z(\to\tau\tau) + \text{jets}$ and top backgrounds for $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$. The bins denoted as $\sigma_{1,2,3,4}$ correspond to the measurements in the four bins listed elsewhere for each observable.

The measured correlations between differential fiducial cross-sections, $\sigma$, and the normalisation factors, $\alpha$, for the $Z(\to\tau\tau) + \text{jets}$ and top backgrounds for $\Delta\phi_{jj}^{\text{signed}}$ vs $p_\text{T}^{H}$. The bins denoted as $\sigma_{1,2,3,4}$ correspond to the measurements in the four bins listed elsewhere for each observable.

The $m_{bb}$ distributions for data and SM expectations in the Resolved SR with 350 GeV < $E_T^{\text{miss}}$ < 500 GeV region after a background-only simultaneous fit to data. Two signal distributions are also included.

The $m_{bb}$ distributions for data and SM expectations in the Merged SR with 500 GeV < $E_T^{\text{miss}}$ < 750 GeV region after a background-only simultaneous fit to data. Two signal distributions are also included.

The $m_{bb}$ distributions for data and SM expectations in the Merged SR with 750 GeV < $E_T^{\text{miss}}$ region after a background-only simultaneous fit to data. Two signal distributions are also included.

Observed exclusion region at 95% CL for scenario 1.

Expected exclusion region at 95% CL for scenario 1.

The $\pm\sigma$ expected exclusion region at 95% CL for scenario 1.

The $\pm2\sigma$ expected exclusion region at 95% CL for scenario 1.

Observed exclusion region at 95% CL from MonoSbb analysis for scenario 1.

Expected exclusion region at 95% CL from MonoSbb analysis for scenario 1.

Observed exclusion region at 95% CL from MonoSWW analysis for scenario 1.

Expected exclusion region at 95% CL from MonoSWW analysis for scenario 1.

Observed exclusion region at 95% CL from MonoSVV analysis for scenario 1.

Expected exclusion region at 95% CL from MonoSVV analysis for scenario 1.

The observed relic density line for scenario 1.

Observed exclusion region at 95% CL scenario 2.

Expected exclusion region at 95% CL for scenario 2.

The $\pm\sigma$ expected exclusion region at 95% CL for scenario 2.

The $\pm2\sigma$ expected exclusion region at 95% CL for scenario 2.

Observed exclusion region at 95% CL scenario 3.

Expected exclusion region at 95% CL for scenario 3.

The $\pm\sigma$ expected exclusion region at 95% CL for scenario 3.

The $\pm2\sigma$ expected exclusion region at 95% CL for scenario 3.

Relative importance of the different sources of uncertainty for three selected signals in scenario 1: (a) $m_{\text{Z'}}$ = 3000 GeV, $m_s$ = 50 GeV, (b) $m_{\text{Z'}}$ = 3000 GeV, $m_s$ = 130 GeV and (c) $m_{\text{Z'}}$ = 2500 GeV, $m_s$ = 150 GeV.

Background yields and comparison with data for the signal regions (SRs) in different $E_T^{\text{miss}}$ categories after a background-only fit to data. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are combined.

Background yields and comparison with data for the one-muon control regions (1$\mu$-CRs) in different $E_T^{\text{miss}}$ categories after a background-only fit to data. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are combined.

Background yields and comparison with data for the two-lepton control regions (2$\ell$-CRs) in different $E_T^{\text{miss}}$ categories after a background-only fit to data. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are combined. Negligible contributions are indicated -.

Signal selection efficiency times acceptance for charged Higgs boson with masses between $60\,$GeV to $168\,$GeV. The efficiency times acceptance drops at high masses rapidly due to the low momentum of the $b$-quark produced together with the charged Higgs boson. For the $168\,$GeV mass point the efficiency times acceptance is larger than for the $160\,$GeV mass point due to having a higher probability that the top quark, which decays into the charged Higgs boson and a $b$-quark, is off-shell.

Best fit values of $\mu_{t\bar{t}}$ and $f_{\mathrm{HF}}$ parameters at charged Higgs masses between $60\,$GeV and $168\,$GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the HAHM model.

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the FRVZ model.

90&percnt; CL exclusion limit contours on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as functions of the &gamma;_d mass and kinetic mixing parameter &epsilon; for the HAHM model. These exclusions assume Higgs boson branching fractions to dark photons within a 0.01&percnt; and 10&percnt; range.

90&percnt; CL exclusion limit contours on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as functions of the &gamma;_d mass and kinetic mixing parameter &epsilon; for the FRVZ model. These exclusions assume Higgs boson branching fractions to dark photons within a 0.01&percnt; and 10&percnt; range.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the HAHM signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the dark photon p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the FRVZ signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the dark photon p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the HAHM signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the FRVZ signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for a dark photon mass of 0.4 GeV, generated according to the HAHM and FRVZ signal models. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &gamma;_d p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for &mu;LJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for a dark photon mass of 0.4 GeV, generated according to the HAHM and FRVZ signal models. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into an electron pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the HAHM signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the dark photon p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into an electron pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the FRVZ signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the dark photon p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a pair of electrons. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the HAHM signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon. The decrease in efficiency, visible at 0.1, is due to the transition between the region of the phase space where eLJs are identified from merged EM showers with two tracks, to the one where eLJs are obtained by the clustering of two resolved electrons.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a pair of electrons. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for different dark photon mass hypotheses generated according to the FRVZ signal model. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon. The decrease in efficiency, visible at 0.1, is due to the transition between the region of the phase space where eLJs are identified from merged EM showers with two tracks, to the one where eLJs are obtained by the clustering of two resolved electrons.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a pair of electrons. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for a dark photon mass of 0.1 GeV, generated according to the HAHM and FRVZ signal models. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &gamma;_d p_T.

The reconstruction efficiency for eLJ objects produced in the decay of a &gamma;_d into a pair of electrons. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for a dark photon mass of 0.1 GeV, generated according to the HAHM and FRVZ signal models. The efficiency is shown as a function of the &Delta;R opening between the decay products of a dark photon.

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the HAHM model, obtained from the &mu;LJ&ndash;&mu;LJ signal region.

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the FRVZ model, obtained from the &mu;LJ&ndash;&mu;LJ signal region.

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the HAHM model, obtained from the &mu;LJ&ndash;eLJ signal region.

95&percnt; CL expected and observed exclusion limits on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to dark photons as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the FRVZ model, obtained from the &mu;LJ&ndash;eLJ signal region.

Acceptance times efficiencies (A&times;&varepsilon;) as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the HAHM process for the three signal regions of the analysis, eLJ-eLJ, eLJ-&mu;LJ and &mu;LJ-&mu;LJ. The decrease of the A&times;&varepsilon; is expected for increasing masses of the &gamma;_d, as its decay products become resolved and are no longer reconstructed as LJs. The local minimum around m_{&gamma;_d}=2 GeV observed for the eLJ-&mu;LJ distribution is expected, as the reconstruction efficiency for eLJs with merged EM showers decreases before the reconstruction of eLJ with two resolved electrons becomes efficient.

Acceptance times efficiencies (A&times;&varepsilon;) as a function of the &gamma;_d mass for the FRVZ process for the three signal regions of the analysis, eLJ-eLJ, eLJ-&mu;LJ and &mu;LJ-&mu;LJ. The decrease of the A&times;&varepsilon; is expected for increasing masses of the &gamma;_d, as its decay products become resolved and are no longer reconstructed as LJs. The local minimum around m_{&gamma;_d}=2 GeV observed for the eLJ-&mu;LJ distribution is expected, as the reconstruction efficiency for eLJs with merged EM showers decreases before the reconstruction of eLJ with two resolved electrons becomes efficient.