Observed 95% CL upper limits on the $\tilde{t}$ production cross section, as functions of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $\Delta m$, for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{t} \to bf\overline{f}'\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ of 50%. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the plots. The search excludes the region to the left of the exclusion curves.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the $\tilde{t}$ production cross section, as functions of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $\Delta m$, for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{t} \to bf\overline{f}'\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ of 50%. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the plots. The search excludes the region to the left of the exclusion curves.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the $\tilde{t}$ production cross section, as functions of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $\Delta m$, for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{t} \to bf\overline{f}'\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ of 100%. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the plots. The search excludes the region to the left of the exclusion curves.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the $\tilde{t}$ production cross section, as functions of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $\Delta m$, for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{t} \to bf\overline{f}'\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ of 100%. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the plots. The search excludes the region to the left of the exclusion curves.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for the bino-wino NLSP model, as functions of $m_{ ext{LLP}}$ and $c\tau$, for $\Delta m$ of 12 GeV. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the plots. The search excludes the region to the left of the exclusion curves.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for the bino-wino NLSP model, as functions of $m_{ ext{LLP}}$ and $c\tau$, for $\Delta m$ of 12 GeV. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the plots. The search excludes the region to the left of the exclusion curves.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for the bino-wino NLSP model, as functions of the $m_{ ext{LLP}}$ and $c\tau$, for $\Delta m$ of 15 GeV. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the plots. The search excludes the region to the left of the exclusion curves.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for the bino-wino NLSP model, as functions of the $m_{ ext{LLP}}$ and $c\tau$, for $\Delta m$ of 15 GeV. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the plots. The search excludes the region to the left of the exclusion curves.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for the bino-wino NLSP model, as functions of the $m_{ ext{LLP}}$ and $c\tau$, for $\Delta m$ of 20 GeV. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the plots. The search excludes the region to the left of the exclusion curves.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for the bino-wino NLSP model, as functions of the $m_{ ext{LLP}}$ and $c\tau$, for $\Delta m$ of 20 GeV. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the plots. The search excludes the region to the left of the exclusion curves.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for the bino-wino NLSP model, as functions of the $m_{ ext{LLP}}$ and $c\tau$, for $\Delta m$ of 25 GeV. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the plots. The search excludes the region to the left of the exclusion curves.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for the bino-wino NLSP model, as functions of the $m_{ ext{LLP}}$ and $c\tau$, for $\Delta m$ of 25 GeV. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the plots. The search excludes the region to the left of the exclusion curves.

Example description

Example description

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\tilde{\omega}$ meson $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{\omega}}=5~\textrm{GeV}$ and $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\omega}\to\mu\mu)=0.162$ in the vector portal model. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\omega}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=m_{\tilde{\eta}}$, where $m_{\tilde{\omega}}$, $\tilde{\Lambda}$, and $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ are parameters of the dark sector: the mass of the spin-one meson, confinement scale, and the mass of the spin-zero meson, respectively.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\tilde{\omega}$ meson $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{\omega}}=15~\textrm{GeV}$ and $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\omega}\to\mu\mu)=0.15$ in the vector portal model. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\omega}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=m_{\tilde{\eta}}$, where $m_{\tilde{\omega}}$, $\tilde{\Lambda}$, and $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ are parameters of the dark sector: the mass of the spin-one meson, confinement scale, and the mass of the spin-zero meson, respectively.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\tilde{\omega}$ meson $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{\omega}}=20~\textrm{GeV}$ and $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\omega}\to\mu\mu)=0.15$ in the vector portal model. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\omega}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=m_{\tilde{\eta}}$, where $m_{\tilde{\omega}}$, $\tilde{\Lambda}$, and $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ are parameters of the dark sector: the mass of the spin-one meson, confinement scale, and the mass of the spin-zero meson, respectively.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\textrm{A}'$ $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=1~\textrm{GeV}$ and $m_{\textrm{A}'}=0.33~\textrm{GeV}$ , and $\mathcal{B}(\textrm{A}'\to\mu\mu)=0.458$ in Scenario A. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and $\sin\theta=0.1$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\rightarrow \textrm{A}'\textrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\textrm{A}'$ $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=4~\textrm{GeV}$ and $m_{\textrm{A}'}=0.4~\textrm{GeV}$ , and $\mathcal{B}(\textrm{A}'\to\mu\mu)=0.436$ in Scenario A. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and $\sin\theta=0.1$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\rightarrow \textrm{A}'\textrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\textrm{A}'$ $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=2~\textrm{GeV}$ and $m_{\textrm{A}'}=0.67~\textrm{GeV}$, and $\mathcal{B}(\textrm{A}'\to\mu\mu)=0.17$ in Scenario A. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and $\sin\theta=0.1$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\rightarrow \textrm{A}'\textrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\textrm{A}'$ $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=4~\textrm{GeV}$ and $m_{\textrm{A}'}=1.33~\textrm{GeV}$, and $\mathcal{B}(\textrm{A}'\to\mu\mu)=0.305$ in Scenario A. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and $\sin\theta=0.1$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\rightarrow \textrm{A}'\textrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\tilde{\pi}_{3}$ meson $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=1~\textrm{GeV}$ and $m_{\textrm{A}'}=0.33~\textrm{GeV}$ , and $\mathcal{B}(\textrm{A}'\to\mu\mu)=0.458$ in Scenario B1. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and $\sin\theta=0.1$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\rightarrow \textrm{A}'\textrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\tilde{\pi}_{3}$ meson $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=2~\textrm{GeV}$ and $m_{\textrm{A}'}=0.4~\textrm{GeV}$ , and $\mathcal{B}(\textrm{A}'\to\mu\mu)=0.436$ in Scenario B1. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and $\sin\theta=0.1$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\rightarrow \textrm{A}'\textrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\tilde{\pi}_{3}$ meson $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=2~\textrm{GeV}$ and $m_{\textrm{A}'}=0.67~\textrm{GeV}$ , and $\mathcal{B}(\textrm{A}'\to\mu\mu)=0.17$ in Scenario B1. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and $\sin\theta=0.1$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\rightarrow \textrm{A}'\textrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\tilde{\pi}_{3}$ meson $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=4~\textrm{GeV}$ and $m_{\textrm{A}'}=1.33~\textrm{GeV}$, and $\mathcal{B}(\textrm{A}'\to\mu\mu)=0.305$ in Scenario B1. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and $\sin\theta=0.1$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\rightarrow \textrm{A}'\textrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\tilde{\omega}$ meson mass for $c\tau=10~\textrm{mm}$ in the vector portal model. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\omega}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=m_{\tilde{\eta}}$, where $m_{\tilde{\omega}}$, $\tilde{\Lambda}$, and $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ are parameters of the dark sector: the mass of the spin-one meson, confinement scale, and the mass of the spin-zero meson, respectively. The grey bands correspond to mass regions of known SM resonances, which are masked in the search.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\tilde{\omega}$ meson mass for $c\tau=100~\textrm{mm}$ in the vector portal model. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\omega}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=m_{\tilde{\eta}}$, where $m_{\tilde{\omega}}$, $\tilde{\Lambda}$, and $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ are parameters of the dark sector: the mass of the spin-one meson, confinement scale, and the mass of the spin-zero meson, respectively. The grey bands correspond to mass regions of known SM resonances, which are masked in the search.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\to\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\mathrm{A}'$ mass in Scenario A, for $\mathrm{A}'$ $c\tau=10~\textrm{mm}$, and $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=10m_{\textrm{A}'}$. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and ${\sin\theta=0.1}$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\to \mathrm{A}'\mathrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1. The grey bands correspond to mass regions of known SM resonances, which are masked in the search.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\to\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\mathrm{A}'$ mass in Scenario A, for $\mathrm{A}'$ $c\tau=10~\textrm{mm}$, and $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=3m_{\textrm{A}'}$. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and ${\sin\theta=0.1}$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\to \mathrm{A}'\mathrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1. The grey bands correspond to mass regions of known SM resonances, which are masked in the search.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\to\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\mathrm{A}'$ mass in Scenario A, for $\mathrm{A}'$ $c\tau=100~\textrm{mm}$, and $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=10m_{\textrm{A}'}$. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and ${\sin\theta=0.1}$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\to \mathrm{A}'\mathrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1. The grey bands correspond to mass regions of known SM resonances, which are masked in the search.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\to\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\mathrm{A}'$ mass in Scenario A, for $\mathrm{A}'$ $c\tau=100~\textrm{mm}$, and $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=3m_{\textrm{A}'}$. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and ${\sin\theta=0.1}$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\to \mathrm{A}'\mathrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1. The grey bands correspond to mass regions of known SM resonances, which are masked in the search.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\to\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\mathrm{A}'$ mass in Scenario B1, for $\tilde{\pi}_{3}$ $c\tau=10~\textrm{mm}$, and $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=10m_{\textrm{A}'}$. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and ${\sin\theta=0.1}$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\to \mathrm{A}'\mathrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1. The grey bands correspond to mass regions of known SM resonances, which are masked in the search.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\to\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\mathrm{A}'$ mass in Scenario B1, for $\tilde{\pi}_{3}$ $c\tau=10~\textrm{mm}$, and $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=3m_{\textrm{A}'}$. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and ${\sin\theta=0.1}$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\to \mathrm{A}'\mathrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1. The grey bands correspond to mass regions of known SM resonances, which are masked in the search.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\to\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\mathrm{A}'$ mass in Scenario B1, for $\tilde{\pi}_{3}$ $c\tau=100~\textrm{mm}$, and $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=10m_{\textrm{A}'}$. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and ${\sin\theta=0.1}$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\to \mathrm{A}'\mathrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1. The grey bands correspond to mass regions of known SM resonances, which are masked in the search.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\to\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\mathrm{A}'$ mass in Scenario B1, for $\tilde{\pi}_{3}$ $c\tau=100~\textrm{mm}$, and $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=3m_{\textrm{A}'}$. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and ${\sin\theta=0.1}$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\to \mathrm{A}'\mathrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1. The grey bands correspond to mass regions of known SM resonances, which are masked in the search.

Observed upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as a function of the $\tilde{\omega}$ meson mass and $c\tau$ in the vector portal model. The phase space region that is left out is kinematically forbidden in the model. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\omega}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=m_{\tilde{\eta}}$, where $m_{\tilde{\omega}}$, $\tilde{\Lambda}$, and $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ are parameters of the dark sector: the mass of the spin-one meson, confinement scale, and the mass of the spin-zero meson, respectively. The grey bands correspond to mass regions of known SM resonances, which are masked in the search.

Observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as functions of the $\textrm{A}'$ mass and $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=10m_{A'}$ in Scenario A. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and $\sin\theta=0.1$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\rightarrow \textrm{A}'\textrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1. The grey bands correspond to mass regions of known SM resonances, which are masked in the search.

Observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as functions of the $\textrm{A}'$ mass and $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=3m_{A'}$ in Scenario A. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and $\sin\theta=0.1$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\rightarrow \textrm{A}'\textrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1. The grey bands correspond to mass regions of known SM resonances, which are masked in the search.

Observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as functions of the $\textrm{A}'$ mass and $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=10m_{A'}$ in Scenario B1. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and $\sin\theta=0.1$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\rightarrow \textrm{A}'\textrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1. The grey bands correspond to mass regions of known SM resonances, which are masked in the search.

Observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}\left(\textrm{H}\rightarrow\psi\overline{\psi}\right)$ as functions of the $\textrm{A}'$ mass and $c\tau$ for $m_{\tilde{\pi}_{3}}=3m_{A'}$ in Scenario B1. It is assumed that $m_{\tilde{\eta}}=\tilde{\Lambda}=4m_{\tilde{\pi}_{2}}$ and $\sin\theta=0.1$, where $m_{\tilde{\eta}}$ is the mass of the dark-sector pseudoscalar meson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle parametrising the isospin violation. The branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\pi}_{3}\rightarrow \textrm{A}'\textrm{A}')$ is assumed to be 1. The grey bands correspond to mass regions of known SM resonances, which are masked in the search.

Cutflow efficiencies for representative signal model points in the vector portal.

Cutflow efficiencies for representative signal model points in Scenario A.

Cutflow efficiencies for representative signal model points in Scenario B1.

Data vs. the ABCD method background prediction for 2017 in $\mathrm{SR_{b}^{mm}}$. Events are divided by the bin width, hence fractional data counts. Error bars show statistical uncertainties of data. The blue band shows the propagated uncertainty of all individual fit variations in a given bin, which we consider to be uncorrelated. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background estimation.

Data vs. the ABCD method background prediction for 2018 in $\mathrm{SR_{b}^{mm}}$. Events are divided by the bin width, hence fractional data counts. Error bars show statistical uncertainties of data. The blue band shows the propagated uncertainty of all individual fit variations in a given bin, which we consider to be uncorrelated. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background estimation.

Data vs. the ABCD method background prediction for 2016 in $\mathrm{SR_{b+\textrm{j}/b}^{mm}}$. Events are divided by the bin width, hence fractional data counts. Error bars show statistical uncertainties of data. The blue band shows the propagated uncertainty of all individual fit variations in a given bin, which we consider to be uncorrelated. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background estimation.

Data vs. the ABCD method background prediction for 2017 in $\mathrm{SR_{b+\textrm{j}/b}^{mm}}$. Events are divided by the bin width, hence fractional data counts. Error bars show statistical uncertainties of data. The blue band shows the propagated uncertainty of all individual fit variations in a given bin, which we consider to be uncorrelated. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background estimation.

Data vs. the ABCD method background prediction for 2018 in $\mathrm{SR_{b+\textrm{j}/b}^{mm}}$. Events are divided by the bin width, hence fractional data counts. Error bars show statistical uncertainties of data. The blue band shows the propagated uncertainty of all individual fit variations in a given bin, which we consider to be uncorrelated. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background estimation.

The asymptotic 95% CL limits on the product of cross section ($\sigma$), branching fraction into a pair of muons ($\mathcal{B}$) to dimuons, acceptance (A), and efficiency ($\epsilon$) in $\mathrm{SR_{b}^{mm}}$. A combination of both limits depends on the relative acceptance contributions in each region and is omitted here.

The asymptotic 95% CL limits on the product of cross section ($\sigma$), branching fraction into a pair of muons ($\mathcal{B}$) to dimuons, acceptance (A), and efficiency ($\epsilon$) in $\mathrm{SR_{b+\textrm{j}/b}^{mm}}$. A combination of both limits depends on the relative acceptance contributions in each region and is omitted here.

Cutflow for signal samples in 2016. Samples are divided by generated mass, signal region, and the b to s quark flavor changing coupling of the $Z^\prime$, dbs. For some mass values, multiple values of this coupling strength have been generated. It is described in this minimal lagrangian: $\mathcal{L} \supset Z^{\prime}_{\eta} \Big[ g_{\mu}\, \bar{\mu}\, \gamma^{\eta}\, \mu + \big( g_b\, \delta_{bs}\, \bar{s}\, \gamma^{\eta}\, P_{L}\, b + \text{h.c.} \big) \Big]$. The cutflow shows the selection into signal regions, and then the effects of specialized HTLT and RelMET selections, which grow with greater mass.

Cutflow for signal samples in 2017. Samples are divided by generated mass, signal region, and the b to s quark flavor changing coupling of the $Z^\prime$, dbs. For some mass values, multiple values of this coupling strength have been generated. It is described in this minimal lagrangian: $\mathcal{L} \supset Z^{\prime}_{\eta} \Big[ g_{\mu}\, \bar{\mu}\, \gamma^{\eta}\, \mu + \big( g_b\, \delta_{bs}\, \bar{s}\, \gamma^{\eta}\, P_{L}\, b + \text{h.c.} \big) \Big]$. The cutflow shows the selection into signal regions, and then the effects of specialized HTLT and RelMET selections, which grow with greater mass.

Cutflow for signal samples in 2018. Samples are divided by generated mass, signal region, and the b to s quark flavor changing coupling of the $Z^\prime$, dbs. For some mass values, multiple values of this coupling strength have been generated. It is described in this minimal lagrangian: $\mathcal{L} \supset Z^{\prime}_{\eta} \Big[ g_{\mu}\, \bar{\mu}\, \gamma^{\eta}\, \mu + \big( g_b\, \delta_{bs}\, \bar{s}\, \gamma^{\eta}\, P_{L}\, b + \text{h.c.} \big) \Big]$. The cutflow shows the selection into signal regions, and then the effects of specialized HTLT and RelMET selections, which grow with greater mass.

Figure 6. Postfit $m_{j\gamma}$ spectra in the SRZ2. The lower panel shows the pull distributions with respect to the best-fit function. The signals with the largest local significances are shown normalized to the observed cross section upper limits.

Figure 7. The 95% CL upper limits on the product of production cross section and branching fraction $\sigma\mathcal{B}$ for $Z'\rightarrow H\gamma$ 0.01% width. Observed (expected) limits are shown with solid (dashed) lines. The colored bands represent the 68% and 95% CL intervals for the expected limits. The red line represents the theory benchmark model used for $Z'$ signal simulation.

Figure 7. The 95% CL upper limits on the product of production cross section and branching fraction $\sigma\mathcal{B}$ for $S\rightarrow Z\gamma$ 0.014% width. Observed (expected) limits are shown with solid (dashed) lines. The colored bands represent the 68% and 95% CL intervals for the expected limits

Figure 7. The 95% CL upper limits on the product of production cross section and branching fraction $\sigma\mathcal{B}$ for $S\rightarrow Z\gamma$ 5.6% width. Observed (expected) limits are shown with solid (dashed) lines. The colored bands represent the 68% and 95% CL intervals for the expected limits

Figure 7. The 95% CL upper limits on the product of production cross section and branching fraction $\sigma\mathcal{B}$ for $S\rightarrow Z\gamma$ 10% width. Observed (expected) limits are shown with solid (dashed) lines. The colored bands represent the 68% and 95% CL intervals for the expected limits

Selection efficiencies for the barrel region at object level. Definitions used in this table: Track-Match efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of reconstructed superclusters matched to at least two tracks (within a ΔR < 0.15 cone) with $p_T$>25GeV, normalized to the number of generated electron pairs. Merged-electron-pair (MEP) reconstruction efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of events in which an MEP is successfully reconstructed, using the same normalization. Iso-cuts efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of reconstructed MEPs that pass the isolation requirement. BDT efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of MEPs that pass the BDT selection among those passing the isolation requirement. Merged-electron-pair ID efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of MEPs that satisfy all signal-selection criteria, again normalized to the number of generated electron pairs.

Selection efficiencies for the endcap region at object level. Definitions as above.

Trigger-level and overall event-level efficiency.Definitions used in this table: Trigger efficiency is defined as the number of events passing both the trigger and the HAA4e offline selection, divided by the number passing the offline selection alone. Number of normalized events passing all selections gives the luminosity-scaled event yield after applying all cuts. Total event efficiency is the fraction of generated events in which a four-electron invariant mass is successfully reconstructed within the 80-250 GeV range, with event weights applied.

Selection efficiencies for the barrel region at object level. Definitions used in this table: Track-Match efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of reconstructed superclusters matched to at least two tracks (within a ΔR < 0.15 cone) with $p_T$>25GeV, normalized to the number of generated electron pairs. Merged-electron-pair (MEP) reconstruction efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of events in which an MEP is successfully reconstructed, using the same normalization. Iso-cuts efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of reconstructed MEPs that pass the isolation requirement. BDT efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of MEPs that pass the BDT selection among those passing the isolation requirement. Merged-electron-pair ID efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of MEPs that satisfy all signal-selection criteria, again normalized to the number of generated electron pairs.

Selection efficiencies for the endcap region at object level. Definitions as above.

Trigger-level and overall event-level efficiency.Definitions used in this table: Trigger efficiency is defined as the number of events passing both the trigger and the HAA4e offline selection, divided by the number passing the offline selection alone. Number of normalized events passing all selections gives the luminosity-scaled event yield after applying all cuts. Total event efficiency is the fraction of generated events in which a four-electron invariant mass is successfully reconstructed within the 80-250 GeV range, with event weights applied.

Selection efficiencies for the barrel region at object level. Definitions used in this table: Track-Match efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of reconstructed superclusters matched to at least two tracks (within a ΔR < 0.15 cone) with $p_T$>25GeV, normalized to the number of generated electron pairs. Merged-electron-pair (MEP) reconstruction efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of events in which an MEP is successfully reconstructed, using the same normalization. Iso-cuts efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of reconstructed MEPs that pass the isolation requirement. BDT efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of MEPs that pass the BDT selection among those passing the isolation requirement. Merged-electron-pair ID efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of MEPs that satisfy all signal-selection criteria, again normalized to the number of generated electron pairs.

Selection efficiencies for the endcap region at object level. Definitions as above.

Trigger-level and overall event-level efficiency.Definitions used in this table: Trigger efficiency is defined as the number of events passing both the trigger and the HAA4e offline selection, divided by the number passing the offline selection alone. Number of normalized events passing all selections gives the luminosity-scaled event yield after applying all cuts. Total event efficiency is the fraction of generated events in which a four-electron invariant mass is successfully reconstructed within the 80-250 GeV range, with event weights applied.

Selection efficiencies for the barrel region at object level. Definitions used in this table: Track-Match efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of reconstructed superclusters matched to at least two tracks (within a ΔR < 0.15 cone) with $p_T$>25GeV, normalized to the number of generated electron pairs. Merged-electron-pair (MEP) reconstruction efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of events in which an MEP is successfully reconstructed, using the same normalization. Iso-cuts efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of reconstructed MEPs that pass the isolation requirement. BDT efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of MEPs that pass the BDT selection among those passing the isolation requirement. Merged-electron-pair ID efficiency (barrel / endcap) is the fraction of MEPs that satisfy all signal-selection criteria, again normalized to the number of generated electron pairs.

Selection efficiencies for the endcap region at object level. Definitions as above.

Trigger-level and overall event-level efficiency.Definitions used in this table: Trigger efficiency is defined as the number of events passing both the trigger and the HAA4e offline selection, divided by the number passing the offline selection alone. Number of normalized events passing all selections gives the luminosity-scaled event yield after applying all cuts. Total event efficiency is the fraction of generated events in which a four-electron invariant mass is successfully reconstructed within the 80-250 GeV range, with event weights applied.

Normalized differential cross sections, compared with the SM predictions, as a function of the absolute value of pseudorapidity of the subleading jet in transverse momentum. The SM predictions are obtained using Madgraph5_aMC@NLO version 2.6.5 at NLO in QCD with PYTHIA version 8.240

Normalized differential cross sections, compared with the SM predictions, as a function of the invariant mass of the two jets. The SM predictions are obtained using Madgraph5_aMC@NLO version 2.6.5 at NLO in QCD with PYTHIA version 8.240

Normalized differential cross sections, compared with the SM predictions, as a function of the photon's transverse momentum. The SM predictions are obtained using Madgraph5_aMC@NLO version 2.6.5 at NLO in QCD with PYTHIA version 8.240

Normalized differential cross sections, compared with the SM predictions, as a function of the event centrality as defined in Ref.[13] of the paper. The SM predictions are obtained using Madgraph5_aMC@NLO version 2.6.5 at NLO in QCD with PYTHIA version 8.240

Normalized differential cross sections, compared with the SM predictions, as a function of the Zeppenfeld variable that is defined in Eq.(1) of the paper. The SM predictions are obtained using Madgraph5_aMC@NLO version 2.6.5 at NLO in QCD with PYTHIA version 8.240

Negative of twice in the difference in the log-likelihood as a function of $c_{\mathrm{W}}$, based on 138 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ of CMS data at 13 TeV.

Negative of twice in the difference in the log-likelihood as a function of $c_{\mathrm{HWB}}$, based on 138 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ of CMS data at 13 TeV.

Negative of twice in the difference in the log-likelihood as a function of $c_{\mathrm{HWB}}$ and $c_{\mathrm{W}}$, based on 138 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ of CMS data at 13 TeV.

Predicted and measured EWK $\gamma\mathrm{jj}$ fiducial cross sections.