95% CL exclusion limits on $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow b\bar{b}b\bar{b})$ for $m_a = 45$ GeV.

95% CL exclusion limits on $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow b\bar{b}b\bar{b})$ for $m_a = 55$ GeV.

The fraction of $a$ boson decays matched to reconstructed displaced vertices passing all vertex selections in signal MC.

The extrapolated signal selection efficiency as a function of $c\tau_{a}$.

The ratios (μ) of the 95% C.L. upper limits on the combined s→ W^±W^∓ and s→ ZZ cross section to simplified model expectations for the m_Z'=1 TeV scenario, for various m_s hypotheses. The observed limits (solid line) are consistent with the expectation under the SM-only hypothesis (dashed line) within uncertainties (filled band), except for a small excess for m_s=160 GeV, discussed in the text.

The ratios (μ) of the 95% C.L. upper limits on the combined s→ W^±W^∓ and s→ ZZ cross section to simplified model expectations for the m_Z'=1.7 TeV scenario, for various m_s hypotheses. The observed limits (solid line) are consistent with the expectation under the SM-only hypothesis (dashed line) within uncertainties (filled band), except for a small excess for m_s=160 GeV, discussed in the text.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m_Z'=0.5 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m_Z'=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m_Z'=1 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m_Z'=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m_Z'=1.7 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m_Z'=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

SM background post-fit yields stacked in each SR and CR category and E_T^miss bin and data overlaid with the maximum likelihood estimators set to the conditional values of the combined signal and control region fit. The hatched uncertainty band shown includes simulation statistics uncertainties, experimental systematic uncertainties, and V+jets theory modelling systematic uncertainties. Pre-fit uncertainties cover differences between the data and pre-fit background prediction.

Cumulative efficiencies for the merged category for signal samples with m_s=160 GeV (a), m_s=235 GeV (b) and m_s=310 GeV (c), each with m_Z'=1 TeV. The dark Higgs candidate selection includes stringent jet substructure requirements and typically at most one candidate is present in signal events. Here, Δ φ_{jets_1,2,3 E_T^miss} is the smallest azimuthal angle between the E_T^miss and any of the three highest-p_T (leading) small-R jets.

Cumulative efficiencies for the intermediate category for signal samples with m_s=160 GeV (a), m_s=235 GeV (b) and m_s=310 GeV (c), each with m_Z'=1 TeV. The TAR+Comb algorithm reconstructs the dark Higgs candidate from a TAR jet with m^TAR>60 GeV that is supplemented by up to two additional small-R jets within ΔR_cone=2.5 of the TAR jet. Here, Δ φ_{jets_1,2,3 E_T^miss} is the smallest azimuthal angle between the E_T^miss and any of the three highest-p_T (leading) small-R jets. For details see text.

The product of acceptance and efficiency (A × ϵ), defined as the number of signal events satisfying the full set of selection criteria in the merged or intermediate signal regions, divided by the total number of generated signal events, for the s(W^±W^∓) dark Higgs signal points with dark Higgs boson mass m_s and Z' boson mass m_Z'.

The product of acceptance and efficiency (A × ϵ), defined as the number of signal events satisfying the full set of selection criteria in the merged or intermediate signal regions, divided by the total number of generated signal events, for the s(ZZ) dark Higgs signal points with dark Higgs boson mass m_s and Z' boson mass m_Z'.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-section of narrow resonance $X$ to $HH$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-section of broad resonance $X$ to $HH$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-sections of non-resonant $HH$ production via VBF as a function of the di-vector-boson-di-Higgs-boson coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$. The theory prediction of the cross-section as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ is also shown. The minimum theory cross-section is 1.37 fb at $\kappa_{2V}=1.17$.

Observed $CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times BR$ for $m_{\Phi} = 200-400$ GeV.

Observed $CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times BR$ for $m_{\Phi} = 600-1000$ GeV.

Combined limits from this analysis (ID) and the CR and MS analyses for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 15$ GeV.

Combined limits from this analysis (ID) and the CR and MS analyses for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 25$ GeV.

Combined limits from this analysis (ID) and the CR and MS analyses for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 40$ GeV.

Combined limits from this analysis (ID) and the CR and MS analyses for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 55$ GeV.

Combined limits from this analysis (ID) and the CR and MS analyses for $m_{\Phi} = 200$ GeV, $m_s = 25$ GeV.

Combined limits from this analysis (ID) and the CR and MS analyses for $m_{\Phi} = 200$ GeV, $m_s = 50$ GeV.

Comparison of the IDVx reconstruction and selection efficiency for a Higgs with a mass of 125 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 8 GeV, using only standard tracking versus using standard and large radius tracking for all ID vertices in the signal MC sample.

Comparison of the IDVx reconstruction and selection efficiency for a Higgs with a mass of 125 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 8 GeV, using only standard tracking versus using standard and large radius tracking for ID vertices passing the full IDVx selection criteria.

Comparison of the IDVx reconstruction and selection efficiency for a $\Phi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 150 GeV, using only standard tracking versus using standard and large radius tracking for all ID vertices in the signal MC sample.

Comparison of the IDVx reconstruction and selection efficiency for a $\Phi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 150 GeV, using only standard tracking versus using standard and large radius tracking for ID vertices passing the full IDVx selection criteria.

The IDVx selection efficiency as a function of long-lived particle decay $z$ position for MC signal samples with a 125 GeV Higgs boson decaying to LLPs with masses of 8, 25, and 55 GeV. The efficiency for the 55 GeV LLP sample is shown both with and without the material veto applied.

The IDVx selection efficiency as a function of long-lived particle decay $z$ position for MC signal samples with mediators of masses 200, 400, and 600 GeV decaying to LLPs with a mass of 50 GeV. The efficiency for the 200 GeV mediator sample is shown both with and without the material veto applied.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a Higgs with a mass of 125 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 8 GeV.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a Higgs with a mass of 125 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 8 GeV.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a Higgs with a mass of 125 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 8 GeV.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a $\Phi$ with a mass of 400 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 50 GeV.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a $\Phi$ with a mass of 400 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 50 GeV.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a $\Phi$ with a mass of 400 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 50 GeV.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a $\Phi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 150 GeV.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a $\Phi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 150 GeV.

The impact of the IDVx selections on the selection efficiency for the MC signal sample with a $\Phi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV decaying to an LLP with a mass of 150 GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $B_{H\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 8$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $B_{H\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 15$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $B_{H\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 25$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $B_{H\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 40$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $B_{H\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{H} = 125$ GeV, $m_s = 55$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 200$ GeV, $m_s = 8$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 200$ GeV, $m_s = 25$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 200$ GeV, $m_s = 50$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 400$ GeV, $m_s = 50$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 400$ GeV, $m_s = 100$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 600$ GeV, $m_s = 50$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 600$ GeV, $m_s = 150$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 1000$ GeV, $m_s = 50$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 1000$ GeV, $m_s = 150$ GeV.

$CL_S$ limits on $\sigma \times B_{\Phi\rightarrow ss}$ for $m_{\Phi} = 1000$ GeV, $m_s = 400$ GeV.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.

Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.

Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.

Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

Expected background and observed number of events in different jet and $b$-tag multiplicity bins.

Cut flow for a model of top-squark pair production with the top squark decaying to a $b$-quark and a chargino. The chargino decays through the non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda^{''}_{323}$ via a virtual top squark to $bbs$ quark triplets ($m_{\tilde{t}}$ = 800 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}}$ = 750 GeV). The multijet trigger consists of four jets satisfying $p_{\text{T}}\geq(100)120$ GeV for the 2015-2016 (2017-2018) data period. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed. The numbers in $N_{\text{weighted}}$ are normalized by the integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

The $1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ variation of the expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=1.0$.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.1$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.1$.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.15$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.15$.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.2$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.2$.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.4$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.4$.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0.6$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=0p6$.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=1.5$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the smuon and neutralino masses, for $\lambda_{231}^{'}=1.5$.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the leptoquark mass and coupling strength.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the leptoquark mass and coupling strength.

The minus $1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ variation of the observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the leptoquark mass and coupling strength.

The plus $1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ variation of the observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the leptoquark mass and coupling strength.

The $1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ variation of the expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the leptoquark mass and coupling strength.

Observed yields, and fake lepton background yields in the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ and $e^{-}\mu^{+}$ channels of SR-MET, along with the results of the $e^{+}\mu^{-}/e^{-}\mu^{+}$ ratio measurement and 1-sided p-value in SR-MET, binned in $M_{T2}$.

Observed yields, and fake lepton background yields in the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ and $e^{-}\mu^{+}$ channels of SR-JET, along with the results of the $e^{+}\mu^{-}/e^{-}\mu^{+}$ ratio measurement and 1-sided p-value in SR-JET, binned in $H_{\text{P}}$.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total number of signal events entering the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ and $e^{-}\mu^{+}$ channels of each bin of SR-MET. The regions are binned in the same way as the ratio $\rho$ measurement. The limits are shown for a selection of 'z' values, where 'z' is the fraction of the total signal events entering the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ channel.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total number of signal events entering the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ and $e^{-}\mu^{+}$ channels of each bin of SR-JET. The regions are binned in the same way as the ratio $\rho$ measurement. The limits are shown for a selection of 'z' values, where 'z' is the fraction of the total signal events entering the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ channel.

Signal yields following each cut in the analysis, for representative $R$-parity-violating supersymmetry and leptoquark signals. All yields are MC generator-weighted and normalised to $139~\text{fb}^{-1}$. The cut labelled `Preselection' includes trigger requirements, and requires exactly one Baseline electron and one Baseline muon. At this point, the muon charge-bias correction weights are also applied. The $R$-parity-violating supersymmetry models were generated by specifying a top-quark in the final state and applying a two-lepton filter, hence the first row also includes events where the top quark decays to an electron.

Displaced HNL search observed 95% confidence level exclusion contour in $|U_{\mu}|^2$ as a function of HNL mass (LNV case).

Prompt HNL search observed and expected 95% confidence level exclusion upper limits in $|U_{e}|^2$ as a function of HNL mass.

Prompt HNL search observed and expected 95% confidence level exclusion upper limits in $|U_{\mu}|^2$ as a function of HNL mass.

Displaced HNL search expected 95% confidence level exclusion contour in $|U_{\mu}|^2$ as a function of HNL mass (LNC case).

Displaced HNL search expected 95% confidence level exclusion contour in $|U_{\mu}|^2$ as a function of HNL mass (LNV case).

Observed 95% confidence-level upper limits on the cross section for Drell-Yan spin-1/2 HECO production as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 4000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 200 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 200 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 200 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 200 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 200 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Total selection efficiency (i.e., the fraction of MC HECOs surviving the trigger and offline selection criteria) as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Dependence of the overall signal efficiency on the pT of the long-lived Z' for Z' -> ee. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Dependence of the overall signal efficiency on the transverse decay radius Rxy of the long-lived Z' for Z' -> emu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Dependence of the overall signal efficiency on the pT of the long-lived Z' for Z' -> emu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Dependence of the overall signal efficiency on the transverse decay radius Rxy of the long-lived Z' for Z' -> mumu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Dependence of the overall signal efficiency on the pT of the long-lived Z' for Z' -> mumu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Overall signal efficiency as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda121 scenario of the RPV SUSY model. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Overall signal efficiency as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda122 scenario of the RPV SUSY model. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

95% CL upper limits on the squark-antisquark production cross-section as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda121 scenario of the RPV SUSY model and a 700 GeV squark. The uncertainties of the expected limit indicate the +-1sigma variations.

95% CL upper limits on the squark-antisquark production cross-section as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda122 scenario of the RPV SUSY model and a 700 GeV squark. The uncertainties of the expected limit indicate the +-1sigma variations.

95% CL upper limits on the squark-antisquark production cross-section as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda121 scenario of the RPV SUSY model and a 1600 GeV squark. The uncertainties of the expected limit indicate the +-1sigma variations.

95% CL upper limits on the squark-antisquark production cross-section as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda122 scenario of the RPV SUSY model and a 1600 GeV squark. The uncertainties of the expected limit indicate the +-1sigma variations.

Fraction of detector volume covered by the material veto as a function of z and Rxy of the displaced dilepton vertex.

Fraction of detector volume covered by the disabled pixel modules veto veto as a function of z and Rxy of the displaced dilepton vertex.

Observed Rxy distribution of vertices composed of two non-leptonic tracks in a control sample in the data and the predicted distribution obtained from the event mixing. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.

Rxy distributions of Kshort vertices from the large radius tracking in the data and background MC samples. Data has been normalised such that the total number of Kshort from the standard tracking in the data agrees with the total number of Kshort from the standard tracking in the MC. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.

Acceptance per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> eenu. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.

Acceptance per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> emunu. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.

Acceptance per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> mumunu. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> eenu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> emunu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> mumunu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Overall signal efficiency (acceptance times efficiency) per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> eenu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Overall signal efficiency (acceptance times efficiency) per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> emunu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Overall signal efficiency (acceptance times efficiency) per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> mumunu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.

Detection efficiency per decay for Rxy < 22 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 22 <= Rxy < 38 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 38 <= Rxy < 73 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 73 <= Rxy < 111 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 111 <= Rxy < 145 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 145 <= Rxy < 300 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.

Detection efficiency per decay for Rxy < 22 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 22 <= Rxy < 38 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 38 <= Rxy < 73 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 73 <= Rxy < 111 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 111 <= Rxy < 145 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 145 <= Rxy < 300 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for Rxy < 22 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 22 <= Rxy < 38 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 38 <= Rxy < 73 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 73 <= Rxy < 111 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 111 <= Rxy < 145 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.

Detection efficiency per decay for 145 <= Rxy < 300 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 100 GeV and LLP -> ee.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 100 GeV and LLP -> emu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 100 GeV and LLP -> mumu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 250 GeV and LLP -> ee.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 250 GeV and LLP -> emu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 250 GeV and LLP -> mumu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 500 GeV and LLP -> ee.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 500 GeV and LLP -> emu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 500 GeV and LLP -> mumu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 750 GeV and LLP -> ee.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 750 GeV and LLP -> emu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 750 GeV and LLP -> mumu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 1000 GeV and LLP -> ee.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 1000 GeV and LLP -> emu.

Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 1000 GeV and LLP -> mumu.

Acceptance, detection efficiency, and overall signal efficiency in the Z' toy model for mZ' = 100 GeV, three mean proper lifetimes (ctau) and the three decay modes of the Z'.

Acceptance, detection efficiency, and overall signal efficiency in the Z' toy model for mZ' = 250 GeV, three mean proper lifetimes (ctau) and the three decay modes of the Z'.

Acceptance, detection efficiency, and overall signal efficiency in the Z' toy model for mZ' = 500 GeV, three mean proper lifetimes (ctau) and the three decay modes of the Z'.

Acceptance, detection efficiency, and overall signal efficiency in the Z' toy model for mZ' = 750 GeV, three mean proper lifetimes (ctau) and the three decay modes of the Z'.

Acceptance, detection efficiency, and overall signal efficiency in the Z' toy model for mZ' = 1000 GeV, three mean proper lifetimes (ctau) and the three decay modes of the Z'.