The \(m_{bb}\) distributions in the MediumBDT categories, overlaid with contributions from the \(H\gamma jj\) signal as well as the resonant \(Z\gamma jj\) and non-resonant \(b\bar{b} \gamma jj\) background fits. The combined \(\chi^2\) per degree of freedom is \(45.2/45\). The bottom panel in each plot presents the significance of the Higgs boson signal relative to the non-resonant \(b\bar{b} \gamma jj\) background in each bin.

The \(m_{bb}\) distributions in the MediumBDT categories, overlaid with contributions from the \(H\gamma jj\) signal as well as the resonant \(Z\gamma jj\) and non-resonant \(b\bar{b} \gamma jj\) background fits. The combined \(\chi^2\) per degree of freedom is \(45.2/45\). The bottom panel in each plot presents the significance of the Higgs boson signal relative to the non-resonant \(b\bar{b} \gamma jj\) background in each bin.

Comparisons of data and simulated event distributions of the BDT input variables \(\Delta R (b1, \gamma)\) in the two \(m_{bb}\) sidebands after kinematic reweighting of the non-resonant \(b\bar{b}\gamma jj\) background. The data are shown as black points, and the background contributions are stacked in coloured histograms. The Higgs boson signal contribution is scaled up and represented by the dashed red line. The bottom panel in each plot shows the ratio between the data and the SM prediction, where the uncertainty band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty only.

Comparisons of data and simulated event distributions of the BDT input variables \(m_{jj}\) in the two \(m_{bb}\) sidebands after kinematic reweighting of the non-resonant \(b\bar{b}\gamma jj\) background. The data are shown as black points, and the background contributions are stacked in coloured histograms. The Higgs boson signal contribution is scaled up and represented by the dashed red line. The bottom panel in each plot shows the ratio between the data and the SM prediction, where the uncertainty band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty only.

Comparisons of data and simulated event distributions of the BDT input variables \(\Delta R (b2, \gamma)\) in the two \(m_{bb}\) sidebands after kinematic reweighting of the non-resonant \(b\bar{b}\gamma jj\) background. The data are shown as black points, and the background contributions are stacked in coloured histograms. The Higgs boson signal contribution is scaled up and represented by the dashed red line. The bottom panel in each plot shows the ratio between the data and the SM prediction, where the uncertainty band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty only.

Comparisons of data and simulated event distributions of the BDT input variables \(\text{centrality}(\gamma, j1, j2)\) in the two \(m_{bb}\) sidebands after kinematic reweighting of the non-resonant \(b\bar{b}\gamma jj\) background. The data are shown as black points, and the background contributions are stacked in coloured histograms. The Higgs boson signal contribution is scaled up and represented by the dashed red line. The bottom panel in each plot shows the ratio between the data and the SM prediction, where the uncertainty band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty only.

Comparisons of data and simulated event distributions of the BDT input variables \(\Delta \phi(b\bar{b}, jj)\) in the two \(m_{bb}\) sidebands after kinematic reweighting of the non-resonant \(b\bar{b}\gamma jj\) background. The data are shown as black points, and the background contributions are stacked in coloured histograms. The Higgs boson signal contribution is scaled up and represented by the dashed red line. The bottom panel in each plot shows the ratio between the data and the SM prediction, where the uncertainty band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty only.

Comparisons of data and simulated event distributions of the BDT input variables \(p_{\mathrm{T}}^{jj}\) in the two \(m_{bb}\) sidebands after kinematic reweighting of the non-resonant \(b\bar{b}\gamma jj\) background. The data are shown as black points, and the background contributions are stacked in coloured histograms. The Higgs boson signal contribution is scaled up and represented by the dashed red line. The bottom panel in each plot shows the ratio between the data and the SM prediction, where the uncertainty band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty only.

Comparisons of data and simulated event distributions of the BDT input variables \(\cos \theta\) in the two \(m_{bb}\) sidebands after kinematic reweighting of the non-resonant \(b\bar{b}\gamma jj\) background. The data are shown as black points, and the background contributions are stacked in coloured histograms. The Higgs boson signal contribution is scaled up and represented by the dashed red line. The bottom panel in each plot shows the ratio between the data and the SM prediction, where the uncertainty band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty only.

Comparisons of data and simulated event distributions of the BDT input variables \(\Delta R(b1,j1)\) in the two \(m_{bb}\) sidebands after kinematic reweighting of the non-resonant \(b\bar{b}\gamma jj\) background. The data are shown as black points, and the background contributions are stacked in coloured histograms. The Higgs boson signal contribution is scaled up and represented by the dashed red line. The bottom panel in each plot shows the ratio between the data and the SM prediction, where the uncertainty band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty only.

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'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the leptoquark mass as a function of the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}$(LQ->$t\mu$).

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 %.

Distribution of the four-lepton invariant mass in the four-lepton final state for the ggF-MVA-low category.

Distribution of the four-lepton invariant mass in the four-lepton final state for the VBF-MVA-enriched category.

Distribution of the transverse mass in the llvv final state for the ggF-enriched eevv category.

Distribution of the transverse mass in the llvv final state for the ggF-enriched mumuvv category.

Distribution of the transverse mass in the llvv final state for the VBF-enriched eevv category.

Distribution of the transverse mass in the llvv final state for the VBF-enriched mumuvv category.

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for the ggF production mode

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for the VBF production mode

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the ggF production mode times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for an additional heavy scalar assuming a width of 1% of its mass

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the ggF production mode times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for an additional heavy scalar assuming a width of 5% of its mass

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the ggF production mode times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for an additional heavy scalar assuming a width of 10% of its mass

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the ggF production mode times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for an additional heavy scalar assuming a width of 15% of its mass

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for a KK graviton produced with k/M_{PI} = 1

Expected signal yields after each of the analysis selection cuts for the 800 GeV mass point. Total expected events represents all type-III seesaw events expected for integrated luminosity 139 fb$^{-1}$. Only events with at least two leptons were generated for this analysis.

Distribution of $H_\text{T} + E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ in the opposite-sign electron-electron signal region after the background-only fit.

Distribution of $H_\text{T} + E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ in the opposite-sign electron-muon signal region after the background-only fit.

Distribution of $H_\text{T} + E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ in the opposite-sign muon-muon signal region after the background-only fit.

Distribution of $H_\text{T} + E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ in the same-sign electron-electron signal region after the background-only fit.

Distribution of $H_\text{T} + E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ in the same-sign electron-muon signal region after the background-only fit.

Distribution of $H_\text{T} + E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ in the same-sign muon-muon signal region after the background-only fit.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin signal regions of the analysis.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.

$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

The normalisation factors for the dominant backgrounds of the analysis in each of the multi-bin and single-bin regions.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin validation regions to test the $N_{\mathrm{jet}}$ extraction.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin validation regions to test the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ extrapolation.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin validation regions to test the $N_{\mathrm{jet}}$ extraction.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin validation regions to test the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ extrapolation.

The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the two-step decay.

The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the Gtt decay.

The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the RPV decay.

Number of events in each signal region broken down by background type and the number of observed data events.

From left to right; the $95\%$ CL upper limits on the visible cross section (${\langle \epsilon\sigma \rangle}^{95}_{obs}$) and on the number of signal events. Next is the $95\%$ CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number of background events. The last two columns show the confidence level for the background only hypothesis ($CL_{b}$) and the dicovery $p$-value along with the Gaussian significance (Z).

Visualisation of the highest jet multiplicity event selected in signal regions targeting long cascade decays of pair-produced gluinos. This event was recorded by ATLAS on 23 October 2016, and contains 16 jets, illustrated by cones. Yellow blocks represent the calorimeter energy measured in noise-suppressed clusters. Of the reconstructed jets, 13 (11) have transverse momenta above 50 GeV (80 GeV), with 3 (2) being b-tagged. The leading jet has a transverse momentum of 507 GeV, and the sum of jet transverse momenta $H_T=2.9$ TeV. A value of 343 GeV is observed for the $E_{T}^{miss}$, whose direction is shown by the dashed red line, producing a significance $S(E_{T}^{miss})=6.4$. The sum of the masses of large-radius jets is evaluated as $M_{J}^{\Sigma}=1070$ GeV.

Visualisation of the highest jet multiplicity event selected in a control region used to make predictions of the background from multijet production. This event was recorded by ATLAS on 18 July 2018, and contains 19 jets, illustrated by cones. Yellow blocks represent the calorimeter energy measured in in noise-suppressed clusters. Of the reconstructed jets, 16 (10) have transverse momenta above 50 GeV (80 GeV). No jets were b-tagged. The leading et has a transverse momentum of 371 GeV, and the sum of jet transverse momenta $H_T=2.2$ TeV. A value of 8 GeV is observed for the $E_{T}^{miss}$, whose direction is shown by the dashed red line, producing a significance $S(E_{T}^{miss})=0.2$. The sum of the masses of large-radius jets is evaluated as $M_{J}^{\Sigma}=767$ GeV.

Observed and expected 95% confidence-level limits on sigma x BR as a function of mZ`.

Cutflow Table for 1 TeV, 2 TeV, 4 TeV MC signal samples and Data. Cut0: $\mathcal{L} \times \sigma \times B(Z`\to H\gamma)\times B(H \to b\bar{b})$; Cut1: Preselection; Cut2: Photon requirement; Cut3: Large-$R$ jet requirement; Cut4: Large-$R$ jet mass optimization; Cut5: Double $b$-tagged; Cut5.1: $p_T$ optimization(Double $b$-tagged); Cut6: Single $b$-tagged; Cut6.1: $p_T$ optimization(Single $b$-tagged).